Author Topic: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)  (Read 3670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« on: February 28, 2014, 04:06:22 AM »
This is a response to BibleStudent from our previous discussion on Evolution (which he fallaciously attempted to change the subject to talking about logic when he realized he could not win by using fallacious reasoning in an attempt to support ID). Here we will discuss evolution, logic/logical laws, and presuppositional apologetics (which he raised earlier). All who are compelled feel free to jump in.

Quote
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)

As a former Christian apologist (of the Matt Slick/carm.org kind for nearly a decade) this argument was my go-to when debating online, until I came to realize how flawed it is, in numerous ways. This argument demonstrates a severe conflating of two categories (logic, that language we have developed, and the existence upon which logic is based). "Logic" proper is man-made. That is to say, it is a language developed by logicians to describe the existential consistency of reality that we find ourselves in. Logical statements (laws) such as, "A is A" exist only in human minds. However, the existence/reality of the corporeal world, upon which those logical statements/laws are based, is not conceptual. In short, our language describes the consistency we find in existence.

BS, we were discussing Evolution/ID and then it seems the minute I gave you the carm.org site, to check logical laws etc, you jumped ship in favor of attempting some other tactic regarding logic (which was a red-herring btw). Attempting to change the subject is a red herring here (another logical fallacy). If you want to ask the question of how we can "know" that the laws of logic are "true" then you'll need to start by defining those terms in quotes. Either way, you are in fact using fallacies here and it would really show good faith on your part if you would (for once) admit it (if you were actually honest) and either retract them or correct them.

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

Oh yeah, that's right I used the word EXAMINE! which bears no difference to the argument I made. It's hard to fathom how you would actually be this dishonest in attempting to just brush off my argument as if it didn't directly pertain to my rebuttal. Well, it did. You have ONE universe to observe AND examine AND investigate. Furthermore, you have not had the capacity to examine all of the logical potentialities in the universe regarding life's origins. Thus, you do not have the data set to make "It's impossible" determinations and have them stick. Again, you are making arguments from incredulity and that is fallacious reasoning.

Quote
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.

So, this is another one of your jump-ship tactics. You realize you're losing the debate. So you bail on talking about the subject (red herring) and start being a mouthpiece for Matt Slick and the presupposionalists. This is really dishonest discourse. Do you even care whether or not your beliefs are true? You said to someone else in the previous thread, something to the effect that you try your best to minimize your biases. It certainly does not seem like that whatsoever. You continually use logical fallacies, refuse to admit it, and then blatantly (in dirty fashion) completely ignore direct rebuttals to your arguments, jumping to new subjects. You call this minimizing bias of sorts? Nonsense.

Quote
Abiogenesis is clearly not possible.

This is a mere assertion, and it is based (once again) in your incredulity fallacy.

Quote
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.

When did you EVER (EVER ONCE!) see me say, "God does not exist"???? I never said this and you are just making shit up again.


Quote
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.


This is just more dishonest tactics from you since it is completely off topic. Furthermore, merely ASSERTING that something is "absolute" (and assuming a definition of that term) is just another example, in the long line of examples, of your "Because I say so" fallacies. If you were actually intellectually honest you would stop reading every Christian apologetics website (carm.org etc) and start doing your philosophy homework (aka - studying those philosophical scholars who disagree with you).

Btw, while you're reading Carm about laws of logic, take the word "God" in those arguments (or "transcendent mind") and replace it with "magic aliens". The argument works just the same (as does the term global-universe).

Quote

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.


Saying it is so doesn't make it so. You can CLAIM all day long that there are "impenetrable roadblocks" but that is just incredulity b/c you haven't actually demonstrated anything close to that. You just keep ASSERTING it. You haven't examined all of the potentialities or capacities that could possibly be or have been. Your argument is completely out of your own ignorance. You are attempting to argue from the unknown to a claim to the known. That is a textbook fallacy. 

Second, I implied no such thing as "God is a myth". You are again showing how utterly dishonest you are here by attempting to put words in my mouth. More to the point, the burden of proof is not on me. It is on you to demonstrate your claims regarding ID being science and how you think you know "God didit".

Quote

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.

This is actually quite clearly what you have been attempting to argue the entire time. You have stated (in many different ways - according to you) that abiogenesis is not possible and that you think your God created life (aka - that your God hypothesis is more plausible) when in fact you have not even come close to determining what is plausible and what is not since you have not examined all possible outcomes. So you are in fact making an argument from ignorance.

Quote

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?


Validity and soundness have to do with logical arguments (not "accurate"). So you are going to need to restate the question properly. Are you asking if logical arguments can have false premises and still have a true conclusion? What exactly are you asking here? However, it is completely aside from the point since the fallacy you are making falsifies your argument and is not peripheral to it in any way.

Quote

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.


There is no such thing as an "I don't know" worldview. So this bullshit you are regurgitating from Slick just sounds like your amateur attempt at presuppositional apologetics (day 1 of shooting from the hip). "It's impossible...", "You can't explain...", "Science just can't explain..." etc are all mere assertions with no backing. Talk about sad. Study history more. Your predecessors said the same things about lots of stuff in the natural world that they didn't understand - only science later figured them out with no need for a bald appeal to superstition.

Quote

[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.


Which definition? There are many definitions of the term faith, and that's b/c the term is inherently slippery. I speak with Christians all the time who wind up having no answers and ultimately fall back on, "Well, I don't know man I just have faith." What do you call it when someone believes something in spite of all evidence to the contrary? How about when someone believes something for which they have no sound reason to believe, or when someone believes on little or no evidence? I'm sorry, I don't buy the slippery definitions. Faith, in practice, is believing when you have no sound reason to. For all other versions of "trusting" we have plenty of good words for those things.

Quote

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.


You keep SAYING, "The only way...", "It's impossible..." etc, etc but none of that demonstrates anything. It's just more "because I say so" stuff and it proves nothing except your bias and desperation to "keep the faith". Science doesn't operate upon your incredulity. No matter how many times you continue to attempt to use it. It's fallacious every time and you should be admitting ignorance on the subject since you haven't investigated all of the possible outcomes. I'm sorry that your precious bible belief and your theology are at stake for you (just as Muslim theology is at stake for them), and I was there once, but your confirmation bias is not going to change how science is done, especially since lots of other professing Christians (who are also scientists) disagree with your absurd fundy methods.

Quote

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


You need to be more clear with what you're saying here. No comprendo.

Quote

1. If you have an argument that you would like to make for the existence of Zeus, I am all ears.


Making an argument for Zeus would be completely aside from the point. You seem to have this nonsense notion in your head that we should just compare all the alleged gods throughout history and pick one. But that would be absurd b/c ALL of them could be wrong and so picking the one that sounds best would be faulty (like picking a favorite fairy tale). My argument pertained to the argument the ancients were using pertaining to lightening coming from Zeus (the same one you keep trying to use). When you have ignorance of a specific phenomena (for them lightening, for you life's origin) you should admit ignorance (just like the ancients should have), instead of believing made up crap in order to protect the theological assumptions you began with at the outset. The time to believe a claim is AFTER sufficient evidence has been presented and not before.

Quote

2. I will not admit ignorance because ignorance Is not present in the rational argument to be for the existence of God.


This statement makes no sense whatsoever. Are you trying to say that you "know" God exists because of some philosophical argument and therefore you are unwilling to admit you are ignorant on the subject? If you think you "know" God exists then please demonstrate HOW you know (not just make claims all day).

Quote

3. Are you willing to admit to your presuppositional bias?


What "bias" are you talking about exactly and how exactly are you attempting to use that term? I could be completely agnostic about all of life's origins, saying, "I don't know" (and don't pretend to like you) and I don't think this has anything to do with bias.

Quote

I am…and I work very hard to tame it so as to avoid being persuaded by
unsubstantiated claims. Do you?


I call bullshit flat out on this one, sorry. From everything I've seen thus far you very clearly have NO interest in lessening your bias. You jump from fallacy to fallacy, subject to subject, each time you are backed into a corner, and you continually refuse to admit the fallacious reasoning you present. Other Christians on here (such as Old Church Guy) are a FAR better example than you.

Quote

4. Explain why you are asserting that there is no known rational explanation for life’s origins.


WTF? YOU SAID THIS, not me. That is what I was responding to. You claimed there was "no known law" that could explain it, and you have continuously claimed (falsely) that it's impossible that life came about naturally on it's own. Of course, you gave no valid response as to how you could possibly draw this conclusion. You just ASSERTED it was valid like everything else you have claimed here.

Quote

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.


Fuck that nonsense. I never said one word you are attributing to me. I never said "God does not exist" and I never claimed that a "God" (whatever that means) is impossible. My default position is to disbelieve a claim until sufficient evidence has been presented to accept it (and even then it's tentative), and I'm willing to bet that you too practice this method (all except with your assumed theology and bible belief that is, b/c you have a double standard).

Once again, you need to actually study logic more carefully b/c you are attributing fallacies to me that I am not committing and it's really making you look just silly.

Quote

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


Dude, you are extremely dishonest. If I misunderstood anything it's because of YOU and no one else. I quoted YOUR OWN WORDS where you said "ToE" was "the biggest shall game". That is what you said.

"I can feel the spirit of Jesus through your love!" NOT.

Quote

What does that prove?
Argument ad populum.


You haven't started doing your logic homework yet, have you? Ad populum arguments are not always fallacious, especially when referring to specialists in specific fields who understand the subject far better than the mass populous (aka - YOU). Had you done your logic homework you would know this.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

Quote

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


This is a red herring. My response pertained to speciation being observed in a lab (and in the wild actually) and evolutionary biology is not subject to your subjective (and flawed) standard of what is considered credible science. The fact that your misconception of evolutionary biology drives you to dream up standards of your own that you think are the only worthy standards for which science should be based upon is only a testimony of your utter arrogance, and confirmation bias toward your theology.

Quote

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


"Snakes" and "lizards" are common household names. They are not classified this way in science. You did know that, didn't you? Creatures are classified by their phylogeny, their morphological traits. You really just need to take some more classes on evolutionary biology at a local community college and challenge your own pre-commitments. Besides that, dismantling what you view as a threat to your assumed bible belief doesn't lend any credibility to your assertions. For that you need actual evidence. You don't win by default. That's not how science works. You should know that.

Quote

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


Another empty "because I say so" assertion fallacy. FAIL. Logical fallacies are demonstrated through language bub. Get with the program.

Quote

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


No, no. YOU'VE been telling yourself this mantra, but it's just another "because I say so" fallacy. ID does not demonstrate that anything is "specified". Specificity requires a mind. So ID (and you) are merely assuming the very thing you need to prove - namely that someone/some-mind "specified" the DNA etc. Neither you, nor Meyer, nor Behe, nor Dembski have gotten anywhere close to showing that. These are just more empty claims.


Quote

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?


Please, get over yourself. What courses, exactly, have you taken that are relevant to this subject?

Quote

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


I will deal with this another time - too much reading and not enough time.

Quote

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.


Oh the irony! You believe the bible, right? So you believe someone else besides yourself and you take their words "as gospel". Hypocrite. LOL.

As I already mentioned above, ad populum is not always fallacious. Go do your homework. And btw, tentative trust is NOT the same thing as your commitment to faith.

Quote

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.


LOL. I love it. You just admitted that they are different domains of study. Comedy. The fact that they are different domains of study is VERY relevant to the subject that is being discussed because the two are asking different questions, have different hypotheses, and do different work. The universe consists of atoms. Do you think, then, that we should just lump all of biology into physics class?? I'm sorry, you're really getting nowhere with this attempt to lump things together which are not the same.

I don't question your honesty. You've already demonstrated to me that you are dishonest and don't really care about truth. It's clear.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 04:16:32 AM by median »
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 #1 on: February 28, 2014, 11:21:29 AM »
Btw BS, in your post #533 (see below) all you did was post a web link to a Berkeley site about the ToE. I asked you twice, prior to that, to demonstrate that you fully understand the ToE (IN YOUR OWN WORDS!!!) and properly represent the theory as presented by mainstream biologists. Instead you just flippantly posted an Evolution 101 link. This is more dishonesty b/c (twice) I specifically asked for something, which you claimed you provided, which you did not provide.

 http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26224.msg600949.html#msg600949

Do you dismiss all other scientific theories, or is it only when they conflict with your assumed theological beliefs?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2014, 01:08:06 PM »
You know, one thing I don't get is how people can pick and choose which science is correct or not based on if they like it or not.

Is the act of doing this not recognized?  Like they naturally do it without realizing they are doing it?

I understand reviewing scientific claims for accuracy, but they don't do this, they already have decided in their minds what they like, so they pick and choose.  Anything they don't like they find any reason no matter how illogical to dismiss the science.

It's like if I were driving to work and one of my tires runs over a nail, puncturing the tire and causing it to become a flat tire.  Instead of pulling over to the side and calling for assistance to change the tire, I just keep on driving as if nothing is wrong, I choose not to believe the tire is flat because I wouldn't like if that happened.  The passenger in the car says, "hey, I think you have a flat tire", I respond "nah, you're mistaken, flat tires don't exist, "God" only created tires, not flat tires".  The passenger thinks about it for a second then says "ummm, no, the tire is pretty much flat, we are bobbing up and down because of it", so I respond "No it's not a flat tire, this must be a bumpy road".  Again the passenger thinks about it for a few seconds then says "It's not a bumpy road, look at the car in front of us, it's not bobbing up and down", which I respond to by saying "I think that is one of those special cars that compensates for bumpy roads". 

Edit: spelling.


« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 01:13:00 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

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1877
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2014, 04:04:03 PM »
No one ever tries to claim that "selective" breeding doesn't work - we have proof all over the place that it does.

How did selective breeding programs used by farmers and ranchers and horticulturalists and whoever grows live things get started in the first place? By choosing which breeding stock to pair to get a preferred trait in the next generation. The only difference is how the pairing occurs, by "nature" as in allowing stock to breed at will, or by externally imposed restraints, as in only allowing breeding to occur under specific parameters.

This is not hard to understand.
"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 BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2014, 04:15:29 PM »
No one ever tries to claim that "selective" breeding doesn't work - we have proof all over the place that it does.

How did selective breeding programs used by farmers and ranchers and horticulturalists and whoever grows live things get started in the first place? By choosing which breeding stock to pair to get a preferred trait in the next generation. The only difference is how the pairing occurs, by "nature" as in allowing stock to breed at will, or by externally imposed restraints, as in only allowing breeding to occur under specific parameters.

This is not hard to understand.

Turn a cow into a bird and then you have a foundation to build on.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12580
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2014, 04:25:31 PM »
Turn a cow into a bird and then you have a foundation to build on.

Why would you choose cow and bird?  If you know anything about evolution, as you claim you do, you would know it does not work that way.  So either you are being disingenuous or you do not actually know what you are talking about with regards to evolution.  Or both.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2278
  • Darwins +415/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2014, 04:28:26 PM »
Turn a cow into a bird and then you have a foundation to build on.
Are you familiar with the crocoduck?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2014, 04:29:36 PM »
No one ever tries to claim that "selective" breeding doesn't work - we have proof all over the place that it does.

How did selective breeding programs used by farmers and ranchers and horticulturalists and whoever grows live things get started in the first place? By choosing which breeding stock to pair to get a preferred trait in the next generation. The only difference is how the pairing occurs, by "nature" as in allowing stock to breed at will, or by externally imposed restraints, as in only allowing breeding to occur under specific parameters.

This is not hard to understand.

Turn a cow into a bird and then you have a foundation to build on.

Cows to birds? Really? This is just bullshit. It shows that you don't know jack shit about evolutionary biology (nor does it seem you are even interested in learning) b/c you've arbitrarily setup your own lone ranger standard for what is science. Your ignorance+your arrogance = EPIC FAIL.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline shnozzola

Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2014, 04:53:26 PM »
         What a bunch of layers of life.  First, I should go for a run because it's warmed up to 37 degrees and more snow is on the way.  Next, I get sucked into a thread, but then Screwtape locked it before I could comment.  But I can't help myself.

Bible Student,
   In your ongoing search on evolution, I am wondering what your intension is?  I'm sure you realize that our arguing on evolution is merely objective.  You are not going to make us ignore the science behind it.  My hope is your questioning is due to your slipping somewhere you do not want your thoughts to go.

   For myself,  I have a Bachelor's of Science in horticulture, of all things - I know a bit about plants, and I may be able to help you with plant production.  I hardly have an expertise at all, let alone in macroevolution.  I cannot speak for the wealth of knowledge here, but that does not matter.  There ARE plenty of people at universities with PhDs in macroevolution - they can argue with you, you can argue with them - if you are sincere, you can do it - take some classes.  There is no reason not to explore all sides while looking for the truth.  It is up to you how far you want to go - who you want to convince - and arguiing around and around at WWGHA.com may not be the most efficient.
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1566
  • Darwins +105/-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 #9 on: February 28, 2014, 07:06:45 PM »
A simple guide to observation and experiment for theists.

What is the difference between them? An experiment is a form of observation which has been done under controlled conditions in order to simplify the observation so it can be understood more easily.

Is it necessary to simplify an observation in this way? No, some observations are done without simplifying the conditions either because they cannot be simplified or because the results are only valid when the conditions are in operation.

What is the best way to observe life forms? Usually in their natural habitat or convenient simulations of their natural habitat. For the study of the evolution of life as shown by fossils, the best form of observation is in their geological environment.

DNA is studied in controlled conditions. For the evolution of birds, even the colours of the feathers of some transitional dinosaur to bird types are now known. For the evolution of humans from apes, the merging of the chromosomes proves beyond any doubt that humans did evolve from apes. There is a YouTube video on this.
The Foxy Freedom 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 ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6631
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2014, 07:37:51 PM »
We know far less about gravity than we do evolution, yet we are able to use our knowledge of that force to successfully launch satellites, get probes to mars, etc.

There are people who think that relativity is bullshit, but they have GPS devices in their cars, which wouldn't work if relativity wasn't taken into consideration when calculating where the satellites are in space.

There are still people who think the earth is flat, and some 40% of Americans think that the sun revolves around our planet. There are literally people who think that we haven't been to the moon because it is only a little bigger than a quarter, and people just couldn't fit on it. Hold a quarter up beside it in the night sky and you'll see why they think that. Sort of. If you too have had a full brainectomy.

Ignorance comes in all forms. And we'll all experience it, because nobody can know everything. But educated people know where their knowledge stops, and learn to trust, when applicable, experts in those unfamiliar fields. And we read stuff written for the lay public that we trust is as accurate as it can be, and we compare it to our knowledge of reality and see if it seems to fit. When it clearly does (evolution), those of us not on a mission to hammer truth into the ground find reasons to accept it. When it doest not fit (new age crap like wishful thinking, for instance), we dismiss it, because it does not match reality.

Recent research into inherited traits show that new experiences learned by animals can be passed on via DNA to their offspring. This means that some aspects of evolution may indeed not be chance at all. This doesn't mean that mountain goats grow wings because their parents figured out that falling was bad. But it is counter to what evolution currently posits, and if true, may cause us to adjust the theory a bit. Not toss it, out, but rather, tweak it to be even more accurate.

BS doesn't want evolution to be true, so he is willing to bend reality in any shape necessary to make it unlikely in his mind. Well, impossible in his mind. He is about as open minded as Dick Cheney at an anti-war rally, and as willing to change his mind on the subject is Rush Limbaugh is about immigration/democrats/non-corporate welfare. BS has his mind made up, and he foolishly thinks his line of non-reasoning is good enough to brag about.

If told that the sun is around 11,000 degree on the surface, I assume he would say "Have you been there with a thermometer" and dismiss the claim as unprovable. He seems to think that all science can fit in a test tube, all proofs apply to anything one can imagine (cow to duck)  or not at all, and he simply ignores what science actually says. This is not a good combination. Here or anywhere else. Yea, it gets him all kinds of brownie points in church, but otherwise that lack of knowledge and low standard for evidence is useless.

My life may be far from perfect, but at least when I say something patently ridiculous, everyone knows I'm joking. People who are friends of BS don't have that luxury. Especially if they agree with him.

Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2014, 08:42:39 PM »
A simple guide to observation and experiment for theists.

What is the difference between them? An experiment is a form of observation which has been done under controlled conditions in order to simplify the observation so it can be understood more easily.

Is it necessary to simplify an observation in this way? No, some observations are done without simplifying the conditions either because they cannot be simplified or because the results are only valid when the conditions are in operation.

What is the best way to observe life forms? Usually in their natural habitat or convenient simulations of their natural habitat. For the study of the evolution of life as shown by fossils, the best form of observation is in their geological environment.

DNA is studied in controlled conditions. For the evolution of birds, even the colours of the feathers of some transitional dinosaur to bird types are now known. For the evolution of humans from apes, the merging of the chromosomes proves beyond any doubt that humans did evolve from apes. There is a YouTube video on this.

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.


« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 08:56:01 PM by BibleStudent »

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2014, 08:58:51 PM »
^^^ You have demonstrated more than just cowardice here. You've shown that you are an outright lying intellectual hypocrite who will not stand to be corrected on his own numerous logically fallacious arguments (including attempting to switch the subject when convenient). You have no room to talk dude.

Btw, don't blame me (or anyone else here) for locking the thread. We're not moderators.

Now, as is so typical with Christian apologists of your kind, you seem to be looking for some kind of absolute proof of evolution, when in fact science doesn't work that way. It does not tell us about "truth". That isn't how knowledge works in science. Your fallacies are multitudinous because you are assuming your own (non-science) expectation of how you think science operates, assuming that if your personal standards are not met then "It's just impossible", and assuming that if you can tear down ToE then it somehow makes your mere assertion more credible. Yet, you have backed up none of these assumptions.

The personal self-deception is all yours, since your personal assumed theology is clearly hindering your ability to be corrected (especially in using logical fallacies), see things in a different way than you now see them, or pursue honest investigation on issues of which you are ignorant.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 09:08:35 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline shnozzola

Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2014, 09:17:46 PM »
actual theism

Actual theism?

Which actual theism?  (sort of interesting, Bible Student, you are not the first person to choose a god - historically, the list of our human theological beliefs is 155 pages long - the simple machines program stopped at 30,000 characters (no pun intended) - only in the A s.   http://www.godfinder.org/   (not to worry, Jehovah is in there.

A Babylon/ Chaldea A moon goddess 
A'as Hittite/ Hurrian The god of wisdom 
A'ra W. Arabia A local god 
A-a Mespoptomia/ Babylon/ Akkadia/ W. Semitic She was a sun goddess 
Aa Maakhuer Egypt A lion god of truthful speech 
Aabit Egypt A goddess of song 
Aaghu Gugu Cherokee A goddess of the of the dawn 
Aah Egypt The moon god of Memphis. 
Aahmes Nefertari Egypt A protector/ punisher of humans elevated to goddesshood 
Aakuluujjusi Inuit The great creator mother 
Aasith Egypt/ Syria A goddess of the hunt, war, and the desert 
Aataentsic Iroquois A goddess 
Aatxe Basque An evil spirit capable of assuming human form 
Ab Kin Xoc Maya A god of war 
Aba khatun Baikal/ Siberia A sea goddess 
Abaangui Guarani A god whose huge nose became the moon 
Abaasy Yakut/ Siberia Netherworld beings 
Abaddon Hebrew/ Christian The chief of the demons of the 7th hierarchy 
Abandinus Roman/ Celtic/ British A god known only by inscription 
Abarta Irish A god of the Tuatha De Danann 
Abassi Efik Creator of the world 
Abat[t]ur Mandaeans It weighs souls &/ or their deeds 
Abeguwo Melanesia/ New Guinea A rain goddess 
Abello/ Abellio Gaul A god of apple trees 
Abeona Roman She is the goddess guardian of children leaving home to go on their own 
Abere Melanesia A goddess of Evil 
Abgal N. Arabia A desert & tutelary god of the Bedouins 
Abgal/ Apkallu Sumeria 7 spirits that derived from the the Abzu 
Abhijit Hindu/ Puranic A benevolent astral deity & goddess of fortune 
Abhijnaraja Buddhist/ Tibet A physician god & medicine Buddha 
Abhiyoga Jain/ India The generic name of the servile gods 
Abira Antioquia The creator. 
Abnona Gaul The goddess of the Black Forest 
Abora Palma Is./ Canary Is. The supreme Being that sat in heaven & caused the stars to move 
Abowie Ghana A goddess of healing & sterility 
Abraxas/ Abrsax/ Abraxis Greek/ Oriental an occult theonym this god has the torso & arms of a man, head of a rooster & serpent legs 
Abu Sumeria A god the of vegetation 
Abuk Dinka Patron goddess of women & gardens 
Abundantia/ Abundita Roman A goddess of agriculture & abundance 
Abziu Sumeria/ Mesopotamia The primordial deity of underground water 
Acala India/ Buddhism This god is protector of of the teaching & defends temples 
Acat Maya A god of tattooists 
Acaviser/ Lasas Etruscan A goddess, one of the fates 
Acca Roman A goddess associated with Hercules 
Acca Larentia Etruscan/ Roman An earth goddess & goddess of winter 
Accasbel Irish Most likely was an early god of wine or mead 
Acchupta Jain/ India A goddess of learning 
Acco Greek A goddess of Evil 
Achelois Greek A moon goddess 
Achiyalatopa Zuni A celestial giant monster with feathers of flint knives 
Achlae/ Aclelous/ Acleloos/ Achelous Greek A river god of some standing in the community 
Achtland Celtic A goddess of sex & magic 
Aclla Inca/ Quechua A goddesses of war & virgins 
Acna/ Akna Maya/ Mexico A mother goddess 
Acolmiztli Aztec A minor chthonic underworld god 
Acolnahuacatl Aztec Another minor chthonic underworld god 
Acoran Gran Canary/ Canary Is. The supreme Being who really really likes milk 
Adad Babylonian/ Mesopotamia The god of wind, storm, flood & rain 
Adam[m]as Nassenes The parental godhead of the gnostic movement 
Adamanthea Greek A goddess of midwives 
Adamisil Wedo Haiti A water goddess 
Adaro Polynesia/ Melanesia A sea god 
Addanc Wales Primordial giant/ god 
Adekagagwaa Iroquois The spirit of summer who rests during the winter in the south 
Adeona Roman A goddess of school children 
Adeos Roman A goddess of modesty 
Adhimukticarya Buddhist/ Vajrayana A minor goddess & deified Bhumis 
Adibuddha Buddhist The primeval Buddha 
Adidharma Buddhist A primordial goddess 
Adikia Greek The goddess both injustice who is rather hard on the eyes 
Adimurti Hindu An avatar of Vishnu 
Aditi Hindu Hindu supreme creator of all that has been created 
Adityas Hindu The divine sons of Aditi, Varuna Aditya, Indra, Mitra, Rudra, Tvashtar & Vishnu 
Adonis Greek A god of nature 
Adonis Phoenicia/ Syria A dying & resurrected god that embodies vegetation scorched by the heat of the summer sunshine 
Adrammelech Mideast A god to whom infants were burnt in sacrifice [only reference to the practice in the christian OT] 
Adrastea  Britain the goddess of war 
Adrasteia Greek/ Thrace/ Trojan/ Phyragean A mountain goddess that is the guardian of righteousness & avenges is all wrongs 
Adro Lugbara An earthly god of & grass fires 
Adroa Africa A god that is the an early version of Adro 
Adsullata Britain A goddess of hot springs 
Aea Greek A goddess of hunting 
Aeacoc Greek/ Roman A chthonic underworld god & 1 of the 3 gods of Hades 
Aebhel Afekan Melanesia/ New Guinea The creator goddess 
Aebhel/ Aeval Irish A goddess who is a faery [interesting story] 
Aed Celtic/ Irish An underworld god known only from inscription 
Aedos Roman A goddess of modesty 
Aega Greek A goddess of war 
Aegeria Roman A goddess of prophecy invoked by pregnant women 
Aegir Germanic A god of the ocean 
Aengus Celtic/ Irish worshipped from about 500 BC/ 400 AD 
Aeolos Greek He was the custodian of the four winds 
Aequitas .  A minor spirit of fair dealing from 300 BCE 
Aericura Celtic/ Roman An underworld god known only from inscription 
Aerten/ Aerfen/ Aeron Wales/ Cornish A goddess of fate 
Aesculapius/ Asklepios Greek/ Roman A god of healing & of medicine 
Aesir Norse/ Germanic The pantheon of the gods 
Aesma Daeva Persia A demon of lust & anger that is ticked at the cow 
Aestas Roman A goddess of summer usually portrayed nude & adorned with garlands of grain 
Aesun Irish A god whose name means to be 
Aether Greek The god representing pure air & light 
Aetna Roman A mountain goddess 
Aeval Celtic A goddess of sexual relations & small size 
Afekan Melanesia/ New Guinea The creator goddess 
Afi Abkhaz A god of rain & thunderstorms that does not tolerate women using his name 
Afreet Arabia They are unclean spirits 
Ag'o Dahomean Worshipped by hunters 
Agaman Nibo Haiti A goddess of the dead 
Agamede Greek A goddess of healing 
Agas Iran A demon of illness, especially the eyes 
Agasaya Semitic A war goddess 
Agathos Daimon Greek A good genius/ guardian spirit 
Age Fon Benin/ W. Africa Revered by hunters he is the god of animals 
Agischanak Tlingit/ Alaska A goddess of the earth 
Aglaia Greek The youngest of the three graces 
Aglibol Palmaryia/ Syria/ Greek/ Roman The moon god 
Agni Hindu/ Vedic A god of fire & guardian of homes 
Agni India A god of lightning, fire, & the sun & who also mediates between the gods & humans 
Agnikumara Jain/ India They are youthful appearing gods associated with rain & thunder 
Agnostos Theos Greek The unknown gods that were always worshipped as a group 
Agrona Wales A slaughter goddess 
Agrotera Greek A goddess of good health & hunting 
Agu'gux Aleut[USA] The creator god that was claimed to be the Christian god under Russian Orthodox priests 
Aguara Tunpa/ Chiriguano The fox god who gave the carob tree to the people 
Agwe Benin/ Africa She is the mother of the sea 
Agwe Haiti/ Vodun A goddess manifestation of Yemanja 
Agwe Vodun A god of the ocean 
Agweta Haiti A sea goddess 
Ah Bolom Tzacab Maya A god of agriculture who controlled rain & thunder 
Ah Bolon Dz'acab Maya A fertility god associated with rain & thunder 
Ah Can Cum/ Acaum Maya A hunter & protector of the animals god 
Ah Chun Caan  Mexico  be deity though of the city of Merida 
Ah Chuy Kak Maya A god of war 
Ah Ciliz Maya The god of solar eclipses 
Ah Cun Can Maya A god of war 
Ah Hulneb Maya A god of war 
Ah Kin Maya The sun god who brings drought but protects man from the powers of evil associated with darkness 
Ah Kin Xoc Maya A god of poetry, a singer & musician 
Ah Kinchil Maya A god of war & the sun 
Ah Kumix Unicob Maya These are small attendant water gods 
Ah Mun Maya The god responsible for protecting the green maize 
Ah Muzecab Maya The bee gods 
Ah Patnar Uinicob Maya They are large water gods 
Ah Peku Maya A thunder god that lives on the tops of hills 
Ah Puch Maya He is the god of death 
Ah Tabai Maya A hunting god 
Ah Uaynih Guatemala A goddess of sleep, specifically males 
Ah Unicir Dz'acab Maya A god of healing 
Ah Uuc Ticab Maya A minor vegetation & fertility god 
Ah Wink ir Masa Guatemala A nature goddess 
Aha Yakut/ Siberia A river spirit, female type 
Ahat Egypt A cow goddess 
Ahau Chamahez Maya He is one of two gods of medicine 
Ahau Kin Maya A goddess of war 
Ahemait Egypt An underworld goddess who eats the souls of the unworthy 
Aheramenmthoou Egypt The god of thunder, night, storms, wind, landslides & tidal waves 
Ahmakiq Maya He is a god of agriculture 
Ahnt Alis Pok' Mexico region A very small goddess - 2 feet high 
Ahnt kai Mexico Region A goddess of women & children 
Ahone Virginia/ USA The supreme deity who was indifferent to worship 
Ahriman Zoroastrianism The supreme evil spirit & lord of the darkness and death 
Ahsonnutli Navaho Chief god 
Ahti Egyptian A goddess of evil 
Ahti (or Ahto) Finland God of the depths, giver of fish. 
Ahuic Aztec/ Mexico A goddess of all running water 
Ahulane Maya A god of war 
Ahura Mazda Persia The supreme god 
Ahurani Persia The goddess of rain and water 
Ai Ada  Turkey? The moon god 
Ai Apec Mochica  Peru The supreme god that rules the destinies of the world 
Ai Tojon Yakut/ Siberia A god that created all light 
Ai Tupua'i Polynesia A goddess of healing & of war 
Aiakos Greek A god of the underworld 
Aialila'axa  Mexico region A moon goddess 
Aiaru Polynesia Her function is to predict death 
Aibell Irish A goddess of Munster 
Aibheaeg Irish A goddess of fire & of toothaches 
Aibheaog Irish A fire goddess 
Aida Wedo Benin/ Haiti A goddess of the rainbow & fresh water Aida Cuedo, Aido Wedo, Ayida, Ayida Cueddo 
Aidin Celtic A goddess of love & sexuality 
Aido Wedo Haiti A goddess of fire 
Aife/ Aoife Irish/ Scotland A goddess & queen of the Isle of shadow 
Aige Irish A goddess of water & bays 
Aijo Estonia A goddess of evil 
Ailsie Cherokee A goddess of water & pools 
Aimend Irish/ Scotland A sun goddess 
Ain/ Aine Irish A goddess of war, of fertility, love & of Midsummer Lair Derg 
Aine of Knockaine Irish A moon goddess who was connected with the Summer Solstice 
Aino Finnish A goddess of justice 
Aiolos/ Aelus Latin/ Greek The ruler of the winds 
Airmid Irish A goddess of all healing arts & witchcraft 
Airsekui Huron The great spirit 
Airyaman Persia A god of social bonds, contracts, & marriage who at the end of time will fish souls of the the temporarily damned called a Hell by using a net 
Aisha Arabic A goddess of water 
Aisha Qandisha Morocco A goddess of sexual activity 
Aittsamka Bella Coola A goddess of teaching 
Aitu  Samoa the lower order of the gods 
Aitvaras  Prussia the The brave & loving demon that will bring good fortune to your home when well fed & treated kindly 
Aius Locutius Roman A god supposed to have given warning of the approach of the Gauls 391 B.C. 
Aizen-Myoo Buddhism A deity who is full of compassion for mankind 
Aizen-Myoo Japan The god of tavern keepers, musicians, singers, prostitutes & love 
Aja Babylonian The dawn goddess 
Aja Yoruba A goddess of healing, herbs & of knowledge 
Ajalamo  Yoruba/ Nigeria/ W. Africa A god of fetuses 
Ajatar Finnish A goddess of evil 
Ajatar (sometimes Ajattara) Finland An evil forest spirit. 
Ajaya Buddhist/ Mahayanna A minor goddess 
Ajbit Maya A god that helped create people [13 were involved] 
Aje Yoruba A goddess of wealth in all its forms 
Aji Suki Taka Hi Kone Japan A god of thunder 
Ajok Louko Chief god 
Ajtzak Maya Another god that helped create people 
Ajysyt Yakut/ Siberia A goddess of healing & birth 
Aka Turkey The mother goddess 
Akasagarbha  India/ Buddhism A Bodhisattva & the personification of supreme knowledge of the absolute void 
Akelos Greek A river god 
Aken Egypt An underworld god & keeper of the underworld ferryboat 
Aker Egypt A god of the earth that guards in the entrance to the underworld 
Akerbeltz Basque An avatar of the god Mari 
Akerbeltz Basque An avatar of the god Mari 
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 09:20:13 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1877
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2014, 09:21:56 PM »
No one ever tries to claim that "selective" breeding doesn't work - we have proof all over the place that it does.

How did selective breeding programs used by farmers and ranchers and horticulturalists and whoever grows live things get started in the first place? By choosing which breeding stock to pair to get a preferred trait in the next generation. The only difference is how the pairing occurs, by "nature" as in allowing stock to breed at will, or by externally imposed restraints, as in only allowing breeding to occur under specific parameters.

This is not hard to understand.

Turn a cow into a bird and then you have a foundation to build on.

Sigh. I can't tell if it's willful ignorance, or if he honestly thinks this remark is a valid response to my post. This is why it's impossible to talk to evolution deniers - you can't get them to tell you what they think is going on, and they post stupid shit like this as though it's an actual reply. You can't make heads of tails of their ideas.
"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."

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1877
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2014, 09:24:50 PM »

And you people wonder why so many others won’t take you seriously?

 :o

Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Kettle. You have a lot in common.

"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: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #16 on: February 28, 2014, 09:29:20 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.

I'd say you are guilty of trolling and/or not staying on topic (by way of not addressing the problems with your fallacious arguments).

Your previous argument regarding macroevolution was a straw-man as you misrepresent the scientific method to suit your own agenda.  Your argument would wipe out several fields of science including astrophysics and cosmology (both of which utilize the scientific method).  Picking and choosing what is real and not real based on what you like or don't like doesn't work (it's delusional).

Your only goal is to redefine science so that you can shoehorn your religious beliefs into the public classrooms thus circumventing the United States constitution.

You refuse to address the problems with your logic and claims and insist on dismissing arguments with logical fallacies.  The only thing you have demonstrated is your ignorance, dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Your primary problem is your only source of information is creationism propaganda (lies).  Don't get mad at us when the falsehoods and irrational arguments you repeat here are easily refuted.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 09:39:55 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
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2014, 09:39:09 PM »
I'd say you are guilty of trolling and/or not staying on topic (by way of not addressing the problems with your fallacious arguments).

Your previous argument regarding macroevolution was a straw-man as you misrepresent the scientific method to suit your own agenda.  Your argument would wipe out several fields of science including astrophysics and cosmology (both of which utilize the scientific method).

Your only goal is to redefine science so that you can shoehorn your religious beliefs into the public classrooms thus circumventing the United States constitution.

You refuse to address the problems with your logic and claims and insist on dismissing arguments with logical fallacies.  The only thing you have demonstrated is your ignorance, dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Your primary problem is your only source of information is creationism propaganda (lies).  Don't get mad at us when the falsehoods and irrational arguments you repeat here are easily refuted.

You couldn't be anymore obvious.

"It would be easy if space permitted to multiply examples of the evolutionists' use of ridicule and insulting names in lieu of scientific evidence. But another type of evolutionary arrogance consists of their repeatedly professed amazement that anyone of intelligence could ever disagree with them."
http://www.icr.org/article/502/

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2014, 09:52:20 PM »

You couldn't be anymore obvious.

"It would be easy if space permitted to multiply examples of the evolutionists' use of ridicule and insulting names in lieu of scientific evidence. But another type of evolutionary arrogance consists of their repeatedly professed amazement that anyone of intelligence could ever disagree with them."
http://www.icr.org/article/502/

LOL, so you link to a creationism site.

Now you're showing desperation.  I have no issue with someone disagreeing with me and plenty of people do.  Also, I haven't actually said you are an ignorant person, or that you are a dishonest person, or a hypocrite.  I said you behave with ignorance, dishonesty and hypocrisy, all of which can be corrected.

I've given you every opportunity to refute my challenges to your claims, but you have refused to address the challenges.
"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
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2014, 09:57:03 PM »

You couldn't be anymore obvious.

"It would be easy if space permitted to multiply examples of the evolutionists' use of ridicule and insulting names in lieu of scientific evidence. But another type of evolutionary arrogance consists of their repeatedly professed amazement that anyone of intelligence could ever disagree with them."
http://www.icr.org/article/502/

LOL, so you link to a creationism site.

Now you're showing desperation.  I have no issue with someone disagreeing with me and plenty of people do.  Also, I haven't actually said you are an ignorant person, or that you are a dishonest person, or a hypocrite.  I said you behave with ignorance, dishonesty and hypocrisy, all of which can be corrected.

I've given you every opportunity to refute my challenges to your claims, but you have refused to address the challenges.

"But why would the public favor creation? Only a statistical minority of the "general public" attends church and Sunday school. Could it possibly be that evolution is so contrary to evidence and common sense that people intuitively know that evolution is wrong? And could it be that many of these have studied the evidences for themselves and thereby found that evolution is not really scientific after all?"
 http://www.icr.org/article/502/

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2014, 10:06:40 PM »


"But why would the public favor creation? Only a statistical minority of the "general public" attends church and Sunday school. Could it possibly be that evolution is so contrary to evidence and common sense that people intuitively know that evolution is wrong? And could it be that many of these have studied the evidences for themselves and thereby found that evolution is not really scientific after all?"
 http://www.icr.org/article/502/

Example of Argumentum ad populum.

Why is that? No evidence provided, argument is completely based on what is popular.

The statistical minority that attend church is a red herring.  The majority of the U.S. public is religious (primarily Christian).
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 10:08:35 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
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2014, 10:16:52 PM »


"But why would the public favor creation? Only a statistical minority of the "general public" attends church and Sunday school. Could it possibly be that evolution is so contrary to evidence and common sense that people intuitively know that evolution is wrong? And could it be that many of these have studied the evidences for themselves and thereby found that evolution is not really scientific after all?"
 http://www.icr.org/article/502/

Example of Argumentum ad populum.

Why is that? No evidence provided, argument is completely based on what is popular.

The statistical minority that attend church is a red herring.  The majority of the U.S. public is religious (primarily Christian).

Nevermind. You're missing the point.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2014, 10:24:16 PM »


"But why would the public favor creation? Only a statistical minority of the "general public" attends church and Sunday school. Could it possibly be that evolution is so contrary to evidence and common sense that people intuitively know that evolution is wrong? And could it be that many of these have studied the evidences for themselves and thereby found that evolution is not really scientific after all?"
 http://www.icr.org/article/502/

Example of Argumentum ad populum.

Why is that? No evidence provided, argument is completely based on what is popular.

The statistical minority that attend church is a red herring.  The majority of the U.S. public is religious (primarily Christian).

Nevermind. You're missing the point.

How many guesses do I get?

How about 3, let's see if I'm right.

First guess, 40 to 50 percent of Americans believe in creationism because they are intelligent enough to figure out evolution is partially or entirely unscientific.  EDIT: AND I can't accept that these intelligent people don't agree with me, so I accuse them of not being intelligent.

Second guess, you are in fact trolling.

Third guess, you're trying to get another thread locked.

Am I close on one of them?

« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 10:26:38 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: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2014, 10:29:26 PM »
BibleStudent, I actually admire your literary skills.  You're very intelligent when it comes to writing.
"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 screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12580
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2014, 11:34:14 PM »
1500 posts and I get a thread locked when not a single one of the posted forum rules were violated

1. you got a thread locked for being a twit. I wasn't about to have a resumption of the thread that was just closed and went nowhere.

2. You were being dishonest in your OP.  You were not asking a genuine question.  You were baiting a trap.  As such you ignored and made no attempt whatsoever to understand any of the answers given you.  Not so long ago that was a bannable offense.  Now it is merely taken as a sign of disrespect and understood to be the cost of having YECs around.  If at some point we feel that is too high a price, you will be shown the door.

3. As you should be well aware by now, if you have issues with moderation, USE THE PM SYSTEM.  Do not bring it up in thread.
 
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 08:58:03 AM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6631
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2014, 11:54:54 PM »
BibleStudent

Instead of asking us questions, tell us why we should question the information we have. Tell us why the fossil record is obviously wrong. Tell us what DNA cannot do that we think it can. Tell us why you think the cow to duck thing is a legitimate form of ridicule.

Give us something besides your opinion. Opinions are very valuable in some circumstances. But when matters of fact are on the line, it doesn't matter what anyones opinion is. What is real is real, whether any of us like it or not. What do you have that we don't that leads you to know that evolution is a bunch of crap?

Science sees a linear progression of life. Science sees no external force bringing first one set of species to our planet, and then, a few million years later, yet more species, and then, a few million years after that, even more species. If your bible doesn't claim that god took his merry time populating the planet, and science looks at the evidence and concludes that the process was both natural and explainable, you need to come up with something besides your fondest wishes to talk us out of our conclusion.

We are convincible. But you have to understand that none of us are going to roll over an play dead just because a theist tells us to. You need to tell us what the fuck happened to cause the evidence that we've found, and show us how it is just plain wrong for us to draw the conclusions that science claims.

The science involved is huge, complex, detailed and full of what it thinks is evidence. We have evidence not only for evolution, but plate tectonics, climate change, natural disasters, evolutionary pressures and other factors. All of which seem to fit together nicely as we do our best to explain the happenings in the past. And you come along, tell us we're all wrong, and try to convince us by getting all petty on our asses and asking about lizards and snakes and such. Your approach is like having a detective walk into a horrible crime scene with dead bodies and everything and then having him concentrate only on why one of the victim's lucky rabbit foot didn't work.

The lizard/snake thing: you need to be able to tell us why the science that says it happened is wrong. Not just that you don't see what the mechanism is (because we do), but what the alternative is. And if the alternative is that stuff was just made that way by an ID source, then why to pythons have vestigial legs and hips? If there is no process tying the two life forms together, why do some snakes exhibit evidence that they at one time had legs? If there is no mechanism, how could a snake of any kind possibly have tiny little useless leg bones? If there is no connection between the two, why does it appear that there is?

You are making a huge challenge, and depending on snideness to get your point across. Good luck with that. That may have gotten George W. elected, but it doesn't work in real life. You need to find the resources necessary to change our minds, or just give up. Because the method you are using is nothing but ineffective.

If you have the truth on your side, you should be able to state it. Science thinks it has the truth, and it states its various truths all over the place, in new scientific papers, in magazines, in blog posts from reputable scientists, in YouTube videos, wherever the media can be used to tell the millions of stories science has about evolution. If you have truth on your side, you should be able to whip out interesting fact after interesting fact, each clearly challenging the status quo. You shouldn't have to depend not he doubts of some, unless you can also clarify the reason for those doubts, outside of biblical claims. And if you have biblical claims, where is the evidence that they are accurate? How is the biblical claim the having goats mate in front of a striped pole will result in striped goats accurate? Is that how genes actually work? Show us modern data to back up such claims. Show us something. Besides your opinion.

The big picture regarding evolution is amazing, from my point of view. Discovery after discovery, across scientific disciplines, seem to verify the accuracy of the theory. And evolution and the fossil record help to verify other findings, such as continental drift. So not only do we have evidence of evolution, we also have evidence that is proven by that evidence. And it should all be a house of cards, ready to fall over at any second, if none of it is true.

Do you actually think that tens of thousands of scientists all over the world are all in cahoots with some mad cabal of atheists or something? Do you think that fossils are made on 3D printers in the back room of some seedy university and dispersed by secret agents disguised as paleontologists? Do you think that the discoveries that appear to help confirm other discoveries are a huge plot to discredit church-going Americans? Do you think that all the fossils we have found have a logical explanation that bypasses evolution neatly? And that there is no reason to bring up said explanation because it should be so obvious that nobody even needs to discover it?

You guys should have billions of little factoids to toss out, each of which should give the rest of us pause; each of which should be making us not only desperate, but perhaps even suicidal. But instead everything you say is interpreted as embarrassing. As in we're embarrassed that you are a fellow human and that wrong.

You need to come up with something that causes us to stop in our tracks and ask ourselves "Could I have been that wrong?" Until you can do that, you are just a pretender in the field of intellectual endeavor, and your actions confirm it.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2014, 09:29:38 AM »

<snipped to conserve space>

I appreciate your effort to explain how you see things. Believe me, I do. I would really like to explain why I feel you are in error but since my approach to analyze and discuss the actual state of affairs is off limits, I am forced to withhold my reply so that this thread doesn't get locked, too.

I know moderating threads is probably a thankless, time consuming and challenging chore so I do not want to add any additional stress to other threads or to the moderators.

Again, thanks for your thorough explanation.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2250
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2014, 10:33:35 AM »
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.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1566
  • Darwins +105/-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 #28 on: March 01, 2014, 12:42:04 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?
The Foxy Freedom 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