Jump to content


Photo

Why Pick Evolution To Argue Against?

evolution science theory creation bible

  • Please log in to reply
352 replies to this topic

#1 Tassadar

Tassadar

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • California

Posted 27 August 2016 - 04:15 PM

Hi guys, I’m new to the forum. Had a lot of time to kill while proctoring an exam so wondered around the internet until I found this little gem. Spent quite a bit of time digging around. I must admit some of the things I read really surprised me. A bit about me: I recently finished training in the medical field and am currently a practicing physician. I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology (largely focused on evolutionary biology and ecology) prior to pursuing medicine so I found this site pretty interesting.

 

I'm curious, why is it that evolution is singled out? Evolution has a scientific basis just as medicine, physics, astronomy, etc. does. So why not argue with your doctor the next time he gives you antibiotics for pneumonia? You don’t argue because your doctor has gone through years of training in the field. You wouldn’t go to a forum and trust some people that “read a lot on the internet” to say hey I don’t think these antibiotics actually work…you should just not take it. If you did that you’d probably get pretty sick. Just the same way it really doesn’t make sense to argue evolutionary biology unless you are actually studying the field. You can’t just read a bunch of blog/forum posts and suddenly think you know more than the people that have trained in the field…and there is overwhelming consensus in those that have in favor of evolution. Similarly why not ask the pilot the next time you fly how avionics work? After all why should you trust that science? Or ask a geotechnical engineer to explain why your house is stable. Why are you taking them at their word but refuse to believe evolutionary biologists?

 

I kept reading things like “blinded by the scientific paradigm” or “no reproducible evidence” being mentioned repeatedly. There have been a lot of eloquent responses to these questions by several posters and it seems pointless to repeat them. Honestly if you want to change the paradigm then I suggest getting formal training in the field. After all the best way to prove something wrong is to actually understand it fully.



#2 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 27 August 2016 - 08:54 PM

Welcome to the forum. I think the forum uses "evolution" as an umbrella term for any science that disagrees with the creationist paradigm. So everything from the big bang theory to geology demonstrating an old Earth is considered part of "evolution", or the evolution paradigm even if it is not directly related to biological evolution as expressed by biologists.

 

Also, if you are not familiar with baraminology then you should read an article about it from a creationist website; you might get a kick out of the similarities between baramins and taxons. IIRC the creator of baraminology was trained as a biologist. I myself think he just took evolutionary concepts, changed the names, and adapted them to creationist needs as the creationist paradigm of 'species = kind' became too flawed.


  • Tassadar likes this

#3 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 28 August 2016 - 12:31 AM

Hi guys, I’m new to the forum. Had a lot of time to kill while proctoring an exam so wondered around the internet until I found this little gem. Spent quite a bit of time digging around. I must admit some of the things I read really surprised me. A bit about me: I recently finished training in the medical field and am currently a practicing physician. I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology (largely focused on evolutionary biology and ecology) prior to pursuing medicine so I found this site pretty interesting.

 

I'm curious, why is it that evolution is singled out? Evolution has a scientific basis just as medicine, physics, astronomy, etc. does. So why not argue with your doctor the next time he gives you antibiotics for pneumonia? You don’t argue because your doctor has gone through years of training in the field. You wouldn’t go to a forum and trust some people that “read a lot on the internet” to say hey I don’t think these antibiotics actually work…you should just not take it. If you did that you’d probably get pretty sick. Just the same way it really doesn’t make sense to argue evolutionary biology unless you are actually studying the field. You can’t just read a bunch of blog/forum posts and suddenly think you know more than the people that have trained in the field…and there is overwhelming consensus in those that have in favor of evolution. Similarly why not ask the pilot the next time you fly how avionics work? After all why should you trust that science? Or ask a geotechnical engineer to explain why your house is stable. Why are you taking them at their word but refuse to believe evolutionary biologists?

 

I kept reading things like “blinded by the scientific paradigm” or “no reproducible evidence” being mentioned repeatedly. There have been a lot of eloquent responses to these questions by several posters and it seems pointless to repeat them. Honestly if you want to change the paradigm then I suggest getting formal training in the field. After all the best way to prove something wrong is to actually understand it fully.

 

Welcome to the forum. Hopefully your time here will be instructive and enlightening.

 

OK, time to critique your opening post if you will allow me..

 

 

"I'm curious, why is it that evolution is singled out? Evolution has a scientific basis just as medicine, physics, astronomy, etc. does. So why not argue with your doctor the next time he gives you antibiotics for pneumonia?"

 

Here for starters is a common fallacy of equating "Evolution" with medicine  (Proper Medicine is based upon the Empirical Scientific Method BTW) for example, those Antibiotics that your doctor gives you are Developed using OBSERVATION, TESTING, REPEATABILITY, FALSFIABLILITY, (Clinical Trials, testing, research, controlled and uncontrolled variables, Etc..) You are making a grave error by trying to smuggle the hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth (Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all flora and fauna that ever existed on Earth) into the realm of EMPIRICAL science where it has no business being.. Abiogenesis / Darwinism is merely a religious belief of an old pagan religion of Godless Metaphysical Naturalism.   It has been dressed up as "Science" but has NOTHING to do with science whatsoever!!

For something to qualify as "Science" (What we Know or What is Known) it MUST conform to the Empirical Scientific Method! The hypothetical hypothesis of Abiogenesis / Darwinism has ZERO and I mean ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it.. None, Nada, Nothing... I have asked hundreds of Scientists, Biologists, Geologists, Professors, and anyone else you can think of to provide some.... No one Ever can and guess what... Neither will you!  And the reason why that is so is very simple... IT DOESNT EXIST..

 

"Why are you taking them at their word but refuse to believe evolutionary biologists?"

 

Are you saying that we should NOT take so very many FORMER evolutionary biologists at their word?.. who, after carefully studying the data, came to the only logical conclusion that Abiogenesis / Darwinism is an Impossible Science Fiction Tale? (Not counting the ones who prefer to remain silent for reasons we can discuss later if you like)

 

 

"After all the best way to prove something wrong is to actually understand it fully. "

 

Oh, we "Understand it" alright, We fully understand that it is based on purely wishful speculation, circular reasoning, hopeful assumptions, ETC.... Need I remind you that those have NO PLACE in the realm of Science.. You are using the old tried and true logical fallacies of Argumentum Ad Populum  E Ad Verecundiam, they may work fine on other sites where there is lots of ignorance about "Evolution" but here... They just wont fly...  Trust me, there are PLENTY of sharp people on this site who know "Evolution" inside and out, so you better bring your A game!

 

I hope I was able to clear up a few of your questions..   Remember, the ONLY reason Abiogenesis / Darwinism was ever invented and it has ZERO to do with science and EVERYTHING to do with the following..

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"

RICHARD DAWKINS

 

Regards Blitzking


  • Mike Summers, mike the wiz and Tassadar like this

#4 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 28 August 2016 - 01:16 AM

Welcome to the forum. I think the forum uses "evolution" as an umbrella term for any science that disagrees with the creationist paradigm. So everything from the big bang theory to geology demonstrating an old Earth is considered part of "evolution", or the evolution paradigm even if it is not directly related to biological evolution as expressed by biologists.

 

Also, if you are not familiar with baraminology then you should read an article about it from a creationist website; you might get a kick out of the similarities between baramins and taxons. IIRC the creator of baraminology was trained as a biologist. I myself think he just took evolutionary concepts, changed the names, and adapted them to creationist needs as the creationist paradigm of 'species = kind' became too flawed.

 

"I think the forum uses "evolution" as an umbrella term for any science that disagrees with the creationist paradigm"

 

No, its just that many of us REJECT the duplicitous, ambivalent and purposely vague term "Evolution" because it

can be misleading.. It is much more ACCURATE to describe Exactly what is being discussed to avoid any "misunderstandings"

 

Pointing to Variation and Adaptation that is observed in finches beaks, moth colors, bear coats, dog variation and bacterial "resistance"

and then claiming we are witnessing "Evolution" is a little game that Abiodarwinists have been playing for years.. Well, It WONT work

here, because we KNOW better..

 

SO

 

Many of us Prefer to use a more Accurate and Descriptive phrase like this..

 

The Hypothetical Hypothesis of mindless MYO mud to man myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian single common ancestor for all flora and fauna that has ever existed..

 

There...  isn't it nice to have some CLARITY???

 

Regards Blitzking


  • Tassadar likes this

#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 August 2016 - 03:50 AM

 

 

Tassadar: I'm curious, why is it that evolution is singled out? Evolution has a scientific basis just as medicine, physics, astronomy, etc. does. So why not argue with your doctor the next time he gives you antibiotics for pneumonia? 

 

I can agree micro-evolution has a scientific basis. General evolution theory, including mud-to-man abiogenesis fairytale, has a basis in trying to pass off a basically atheist belief, as "science".

 

I think it's easy to get into the false-comparison trap. Strictly speaking, logical notation teaches that each case must be weighed on it's own merit, and not on the merit of other cases. My own Spock-axiom I invented. ;)

 

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to think that if something is science then it is just as meritorious as another thing, "science". Obviously like Blitzking said, we can pretty much prove the effects of germ-theory, we can observably prove and deduce exotic air, we can demonstrate there is a real force we call, "gravity" by showing the implication that if we jump from a cliff we will fall to the ground. What we can't do is show macro-evolution, nor observe how it constructs an atp-synthase rotary motor with cogs and a stator. 

 

 

 

Tassadar:  You can’t just read a bunch of blog/forum posts and suddenly think you know more than the people that have trained in the field…and there is overwhelming consensus in those that have in favor of evolution

 

This implies a false dichotomy sometimes known as a limited choice fallacy, coupled with argumentum ad populum. You seem to assume the following; "you are either an uneducated person which is why you reject evolution, or you are an educated person that accepts evolution".

 

You say things on this site have surprised you, one thing that might surprise you is that there are thousands of scientists that are educated in science yet they are Darwin-dissenters. Not all of them are creationist of course, but lots of respectable, educated people, reject evolution. What is also clear is that they don't reject germs, gravity or oxygen, meaning there must be a difference.

 

Moreover, that there is an "overwhelming consensus" is not only the fallacy of an appeal to popularity, but also I would argue that it is in fact expected and inevitable that most scientists would accept evolution.

 

When you think about it properly, every person studying science is told the, "only scientific" explanation is evolution, so why would we expect most scientists to reject it? To give an analogy, imagine if you were in a room with many friends, and a very, very popular friend called Bob, whom everyone liked, said he had the keys, or so it is rumoured. So you don't know this so you ask John; "who has the keys?" and he says; "Bob has them". Then you tell your friend, then he tells your friend. If you take a poll after an hour, 90% of people will tell you Bob has the keys. 

 

 

Question; did they study the matter?

 

That's why it is IRONIC that you come here to tell us we are ignorant. Most scientists don't study evolution in detail as that isn't their field, but rather they accept it because they have faith in science, which is what they love and why they are studying it. They accept it as argumentum ad verecundiam, meaning they appeal to "science" as an authority, for their argument as to why evolution is factual.

 

Ironically, people who come to reject evolution are usually more studious in it. 

 

 

 

 Tassadar: Or ask a geotechnical engineer to explain why your house is stable. Why are you taking them at their word but refuse to believe evolutionary biologists?

 

This is the interesting question isn't it. I would say it is because God has not stated that houses are not stable and geotechnical engineering is wrong.

 

Evolution as a theory, makes implications that our God does not exist and that He has lied when He said He made mankind in His image. 

 

In other words, evolution isn't strictly science, it makes claims that pertain to "truth", therefore if an implication of evolution theory is that God is wrong, then obviously evolution isn't only about science.

 

Now if you can show me with your bachelors, the evidence that shows a turtle's interior scapular girdle evolved from a leg with an exterior scapular girdle, and show the conspicuously absent transitionals proving it happened that way, then I would be impressed.

 

If you can show how pterosaurs evolved, by showing me their progenitors, and how they made use of an elongated finger and pteroid bone, while they evolved flight, then please do so. If you can show me how sea-slugs made use of sea-anemone darts by eating them without being able to digest them because of the intelligently designed contingency plans were not yet in place, I would be impressed.

 

If you can show me the transitionals that led to apes, I would be impressed.

 

So when I ask a geotechnical engineer for proof, or the doctor for evidence the medicine he gave me works, these things can be shown to be demonstrably true.

 

HINT: If you are going to come on to a board assuming the Christian creationists are retarded, then obviously you're going to have to deal with the response, when the proverbial hits the fan. So if you can adjust your attitude-problem, of immediately committing a sweeping generalisation by assuming we are all simply uneducated nit-wits, pertaining to evolution theory, then we might get along, because right now I'm, "LAUGHING at your superior bachelors-intellect" - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.

:acigar: ;)

 

(welcome to the forum.) :D


  • Tassadar likes this

#6 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 28 August 2016 - 08:25 AM

Hi guys, I’m new to the forum. Had a lot of time to kill while proctoring an exam so wondered around the internet until I found this little gem. Spent quite a bit of time digging around. I must admit some of the things I read really surprised me. A bit about me: I recently finished training in the medical field and am currently a practicing physician. I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology (largely focused on evolutionary biology and ecology) prior to pursuing medicine so I found this site pretty interesting.

Welcome to the forum.  :)

 

I'm curious, why is it that evolution is singled out? Evolution has a scientific basis just as medicine, physics, astronomy, etc. does. So why not argue with your doctor the next time he gives you antibiotics for pneumonia? You don’t argue because your doctor has gone through years of training in the field. 

Evolution isn't singled out, medicine is questioned as well (AIDS, Vaccinations, Epilepsy, ...), if you look for it.

 

But evolution is focused upon here because it is contradicts the simplistic interpretations of the Bible, which are most easily taught. They're afraid that accepting a different interpretation will invalidate the Bible as a whole and thus reject evolution rather then combine it with God. If holding through to creationisms, a God is by definition necessary so that's a safe position to be.

As can be seen in the replies above.

 

I kept reading things like “blinded by the scientific paradigm” or “no reproducible evidence” being mentioned repeatedly. There have been a lot of eloquent responses to these questions by several posters and it seems pointless to repeat them. Honestly if you want to change the paradigm then I suggest getting formal training in the field. After all the best way to prove something wrong is to actually understand it fully.

Unfortunately not everyone has the resources (time/money/..) for formal training in every field they claim to be interested in. Even if they could have access to formal training, you should realize that not all formal training is as good. For some people having no good formal education is something they regret and they aren't always so happy about it when that is pointed out.  ;)


  • Tassadar likes this

#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 August 2016 - 08:56 AM

 

 

Fjuri:  For some people having no good formal education is something they regret and they aren't always so happy about it when that is pointed out.

 

And some people can self-educate to a point where their knowledge exceeds that of a bachelors, even though they have no official credentials. I mean do you think I couldn't pass a quack-test for pre-teens, on evolution after all these years studying these matters? :rolleyes: A bachelors is about equivalent to this;

 

 

:rotfl3: ;)

 

Let the fresh-meat test me.

 

 ...if he can, with his remarkable cup-a-soup in evo, have me foxed, with some questions about evolution then fair enough, perhaps I could do with a cup-a-soup, too.  :farmer: 

 

 


  • Tassadar likes this

#8 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 28 August 2016 - 09:11 AM

 

For some people having no good formal education is something they regret and they aren't always so happy about it when that is pointed out.   ;)

And some people can self-educate to a point where their knowledge exceeds that of a bachelors, even though they have no official credentials. I mean do you think I couldn't pass a quack-test for pre-teens, on evolution after all these years studying these matters? :rolleyes: A bachelors is about equivalent to this;

 

attachicon.gifbachelors.jpg

 

:rotfl3:

 

Let the fresh-meat test me.

 

 ...if he can, with his remarkable cup-a-soup in evo, have me foxed, with some questions about evolution then fair enough, perhaps I could do with a cup-a-soup, too.  :farmer: 

 

I rest my case...

 

:kaffeetrinker:


  • Tassadar likes this

#9 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 28 August 2016 - 10:36 AM

Hi guys, I’m new to the forum. Had a lot of time to kill while proctoring an exam so wondered around the internet until I found this little gem. Spent quite a bit of time digging around. I must admit some of the things I read really surprised me. A bit about me: I recently finished training in the medical field and am currently a practicing physician. I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology (largely focused on evolutionary biology and ecology) prior to pursuing medicine so I found this site pretty interesting.

 Welcome to the forum. I think you will be able to tell more about what is taught in the courses you attended. 
 

I'm curious, why is it that evolution is singled out? Evolution has a scientific basis just as medicine, physics, astronomy, etc. does. So why not argue with your doctor the next time he gives you antibiotics for pneumonia? You don’t argue because your doctor has gone through years of training in the field. You wouldn’t go to a forum and trust some people that “read a lot on the internet” to say hey I don’t think these antibiotics actually work…you should just not take it. If you did that you’d probably get pretty sick.

I think one mustn't confuse scientific disciplines with specific paradigms that do exist within scientific disciplines. One also mustn't confuse scientific speculation with operational or empirical science that has been established on centuries of inductive experimentation and deductive reasoning.

 

Evolution is pushed politically with an agenda. Of course there maybe other ideas pushed in that way. But you can't deal with all issues at the same time. 

 

Concerning your analogy with the Doctor:

1. I rarely see one, mostly only for compulsory check-ups. Fortunately I'm blessed with good health and when I feel sick, it usually goes away after a view days.  

2. When consulting with a doctor I ask them to explain problem and procedure to me, since I want to understand what is happening and what he's doing. I mean, I also pay for this. 

3. Medical Doctors are legally accountable for what they are doing. That means, if something goes wrong, they may have to pay for this. Evolutionists can tell any story they want. It doesn't matter, if it's true or false. They will not be legally accountable for this. The worst thing that can happen to them is that they get shun by their colleagues, get difficulties finding positions, won't get tenure or funding. So they have a motive to tell things that won't offend the decision makers in that terrain. 

4. Medicines and medical procedures are intelligently designed based on empirical findings, scientific law and years of experimentation and experience. That's far safer and reliable then conjecture of just so stories. 

 

Just the same way it really doesn’t make sense to argue evolutionary biology unless you are actually studying the field. You can’t just read a bunch of blog/forum posts and suddenly think you know more than the people that have trained in the field…and there is overwhelming consensus in those that have in favor of evolution. Similarly why not ask the pilot the next time you fly how avionics work? After all why should you trust that science? Or ask a geotechnical engineer to explain why your house is stable. Why are you taking them at their word but refuse to believe evolutionary biologists?

Point three and point four from above apply to geotechnical engineers as well. Again there is liability and physics applied to empirical findings.  
 

I kept reading things like “blinded by the scientific paradigm” or “no reproducible evidence” being mentioned repeatedly. There have been a lot of eloquent responses to these questions by several posters and it seems pointless to repeat them. Honestly if you want to change the paradigm then I suggest getting formal training in the field. After all the best way to prove something wrong is to actually understand it fully.

 

 

Eloquence doesn't replace reproducible proof. There is also a lot of formally trained dissidents from the evolutionary paradigm. For me logical analysis of the arguments and deconstructing evolutionary thought is enough. I have some formal education in that field. But my personal preference is to study and investigate things my self and on my own. Rather use ingenuity and creativity to solve problems. That's sometimes more difficult, but keeps the brain going. 



#10 Tassadar

Tassadar

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • California

Posted 28 August 2016 - 01:37 PM

Welcome to the forum. Hopefully your time here will be instructive and enlightening.

 

OK, time to critique your opening post if you will allow me..

 

 

"I'm curious, why is it that evolution is singled out? Evolution has a scientific basis just as medicine, physics, astronomy, etc. does. So why not argue with your doctor the next time he gives you antibiotics for pneumonia?"

 

Here for starters is a common fallacy of equating "Evolution" with medicine  (Proper Medicine is based upon the Empirical Scientific Method BTW) for example, those Antibiotics that your doctor gives you are Developed using OBSERVATION, TESTING, REPEATABILITY, FALSFIABLILITY, (Clinical Trials, testing, research, controlled and uncontrolled variables, Etc..) You are making a grave error by trying to smuggle the hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth (Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all flora and fauna that ever existed on Earth) into the realm of EMPIRICAL science where it has no business being.. Abiogenesis / Darwinism is merely a religious belief of an old pagan religion of Godless Metaphysical Naturalism.   It has been dressed up as "Science" but has NOTHING to do with science whatsoever!!

For something to qualify as "Science" (What we Know or What is Known) it MUST conform to the Empirical Scientific Method! The hypothetical hypothesis of Abiogenesis / Darwinism has ZERO and I mean ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it.. None, Nada, Nothing... I have asked hundreds of Scientists, Biologists, Geologists, Professors, and anyone else you can think of to provide some.... No one Ever can and guess what... Neither will you!  And the reason why that is so is very simple... IT DOESNT EXIST..

 

"Why are you taking them at their word but refuse to believe evolutionary biologists?"

 

Are you saying that we should NOT take so very many FORMER evolutionary biologists at their word?.. who, after carefully studying the data, came to the only logical conclusion that Abiogenesis / Darwinism is an Impossible Science Fiction Tale? (Not counting the ones who prefer to remain silent for reasons we can discuss later if you like)

 

 

"After all the best way to prove something wrong is to actually understand it fully. "

 

Oh, we "Understand it" alright, We fully understand that it is based on purely wishful speculation, circular reasoning, hopeful assumptions, ETC.... Need I remind you that those have NO PLACE in the realm of Science.. You are using the old tried and true logical fallacies of Argumentum Ad Populum  E Ad Verecundiam, they may work fine on other sites where there is lots of ignorance about "Evolution" but here... They just wont fly...  Trust me, there are PLENTY of sharp people on this site who know "Evolution" inside and out, so you better bring your A game!

 

I hope I was able to clear up a few of your questions..   Remember, the ONLY reason Abiogenesis / Darwinism was ever invented and it has ZERO to do with science and EVERYTHING to do with the following..

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"

RICHARD DAWKINS

 

Regards Blitzking

 

Hi Blitzking,

 

Sorry I should have been more clear, but I didn't actually realize there was a difference being perceived between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution. I was giving general examples of science that seem to be accepted by posters here (an assumption on my part) but evolution is singled out. Evolution does in fact conform to the empirical Scientific Method. I have formally studied it, I'd imagine a lot of "pro-evolution" posters on this board have studied it. If you have not, you should since it seems you have strong opinions about it. If you haven't then quite frankly, in my opinion, you do not have enough knowledge to actually stand on to debate the subject (but of course you have the right to do so). I want to be clear, I'm all for self learning and self education. However the internet can be a very polarizing place. There is so much misinformation on here that it can make you believe pretty much anything depending on your source. Going back to my previous example...who are you going to trust, a doctor who learned stuff on the internet or one that went to medical school. If you are trusting someone to build a house for your family, are you going to trust the guy that learned it on the internet or the contractor that's been building houses for the last 20 years? How do you know what parts of these science even have empirical or observational evidence. Furthermore if you have cancer and 90% of the oncologists tell you "hey you really need this chemo or you will likely die in the next year" but 10% of the doctors tell you "hey you know you are feeling fine, no need for chemo....i mean it's common sense...if you were going to die in a year you would feel something right now". Who would you trust? I'd hope the 90%. Even though you may feel well you would trust the science and the experts in the field. I think the same goes for evolutionary biology, or any other science. You should trust the consensus of the experts, unless you have the training, knowledge, evidence to stand against it.

 

I don't agree with you that evolution has "zero to do with science" and the vast majority of experts in that very field/related fields would disagree with you. I am not going to go into details. I've read a lot of amazing posts that are from way more knowledgeable people than me on this board so I don't think there is any understanding to be gained by rehashing old arguments. I was just curious why there is such strong opinions on bible vs. evolutionary science when I never really felt that the two were mutually exclusive. It's almost like the whole church vs. Galileo thing and in the end it was clear that the bible was just fine with earth not being the center of the universe. I think the bible is just fine with evolution as well.

 

Thanks for your response! 

 

 

Welcome to the forum. I think the forum uses "evolution" as an umbrella term for any science that disagrees with the creationist paradigm. So everything from the big bang theory to geology demonstrating an old Earth is considered part of "evolution", or the evolution paradigm even if it is not directly related to biological evolution as expressed by biologists.

 

Also, if you are not familiar with baraminology then you should read an article about it from a creationist website; you might get a kick out of the similarities between baramins and taxons. IIRC the creator of baraminology was trained as a biologist. I myself think he just took evolutionary concepts, changed the names, and adapted them to creationist needs as the creationist paradigm of 'species = kind' became too flawed.

 

Hi Goku,

 

Thanks for the welcome. I see, I didn't really look into the other sub-forums but now I see your point. Will def take a look at baraminology, never heard of it until now.

 

By the way, amazing posts. Very articulate. Learned quite a bit from them!



#11 Tassadar

Tassadar

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • California

Posted 28 August 2016 - 02:11 PM

I can agree micro-evolution has a scientific basis. General evolution theory, including mud-to-man abiogenesis fairytale, has a basis in trying to pass off a basically atheist belief, as "science".

 

I think it's easy to get into the false-comparison trap. Strictly speaking, logical notation teaches that each case must be weighed on it's own merit, and not on the merit of other cases. My own Spock-axiom I invented. ;)

 

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to think that if something is science then it is just as meritorious as another thing, "science". Obviously like Blitzking said, we can pretty much prove the effects of germ-theory, we can observably prove and deduce exotic air, we can demonstrate there is a real force we call, "gravity" by showing the implication that if we jump from a cliff we will fall to the ground. What we can't do is show macro-evolution, nor observe how it constructs an atp-synthase rotary motor with cogs and a stator. 

 

 

This implies a false dichotomy sometimes known as a limited choice fallacy, coupled with argumentum ad populum. You seem to assume the following; "you are either an uneducated person which is why you reject evolution, or you are an educated person that accepts evolution".

 

You say things on this site have surprised you, one thing that might surprise you is that there are thousands of scientists that are educated in science yet they are Darwin-dissenters. Not all of them are creationist of course, but lots of respectable, educated people, reject evolution. What is also clear is that they don't reject germs, gravity or oxygen, meaning there must be a difference.

 

Moreover, that there is an "overwhelming consensus" is not only the fallacy of an appeal to popularity, but also I would argue that it is in fact expected and inevitable that most scientists would accept evolution.

 

When you think about it properly, every person studying science is told the, "only scientific" explanation is evolution, so why would we expect most scientists to reject it? To give an analogy, imagine if you were in a room with many friends, and a very, very popular friend called Bob, whom everyone liked, said he had the keys, or so it is rumoured. So you don't know this so you ask John; "who has the keys?" and he says; "Bob has them". Then you tell your friend, then he tells your friend. If you take a poll after an hour, 90% of people will tell you Bob has the keys. 

 

 

Question; did they study the matter?

 

That's why it is IRONIC that you come here to tell us we are ignorant. Most scientists don't study evolution in detail as that isn't their field, but rather they accept it because they have faith in science, which is what they love and why they are studying it. They accept it as argumentum ad verecundiam, meaning they appeal to "science" as an authority, for their argument as to why evolution is factual.

 

Ironically, people who come to reject evolution are usually more studious in it. 

 

 

This is the interesting question isn't it. I would say it is because God has not stated that houses are not stable and geotechnical engineering is wrong.

 

Evolution as a theory, makes implications that our God does not exist and that He has lied when He said He made mankind in His image. 

 

In other words, evolution isn't strictly science, it makes claims that pertain to "truth", therefore if an implication of evolution theory is that God is wrong, then obviously evolution isn't only about science.

 

Now if you can show me with your bachelors, the evidence that shows a turtle's interior scapular girdle evolved from a leg with an exterior scapular girdle, and show the conspicuously absent transitionals proving it happened that way, then I would be impressed.

 

If you can show how pterosaurs evolved, by showing me their progenitors, and how they made use of an elongated finger and pteroid bone, while they evolved flight, then please do so. If you can show me how sea-slugs made use of sea-anemone darts by eating them without being able to digest them because of the intelligently designed contingency plans were not yet in place, I would be impressed.

 

If you can show me the transitionals that led to apes, I would be impressed.

 

So when I ask a geotechnical engineer for proof, or the doctor for evidence the medicine he gave me works, these things can be shown to be demonstrably true.

 

HINT: If you are going to come on to a board assuming the Christian creationists are retarded, then obviously you're going to have to deal with the response, when the proverbial hits the fan. So if you can adjust your attitude-problem, of immediately committing a sweeping generalisation by assuming we are all simply uneducated nit-wits, pertaining to evolution theory, then we might get along, because right now I'm, "LAUGHING at your superior bachelors-intellect" - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.

:acigar: ;)

 

(welcome to the forum.) :D

 
Haha thanks for your response mike the wiz! Just to be clear I do not think Christian creationists are retarded. You all seem very well read, though I certainly do not agree with your sources. 
 
Your false dichotomy stuff I think is off base. My exact words were "overwhelming consensus". I think very few things in science have 100% consensus. That's what makes it progress. So there are biologists that don't believe in evolution, very few and most have obvious religious motives. That's fine. My point is to actually argue it you need some sort of formal education in the field. Otherwise it will go in circles because there is not actual understanding of concepts. It's like speaking different languages. Neither side understand what the other is saying. All of us are educated to some degree but we have our own fields of expertise. I don't tell my dentist how to do her job...I trust she knows what she's doing because she has the training.
 
There is no false comparison trap. I think my initial argument was not very well explained because I did not fully understand your guys' position. My bottom line is I know absolutely nothing about a lot of the sciences out there. I don't say "hey physicist this theoretical particle that you talk about doesn't make sense to be. I don't believe it because you haven't shown me a picture of it!" I mean to me it is pretty obvious the physicist knows more than me and even if it doesn't make sense to me personally the odds are higher that he's right not me. So when a coupe years later when physicist do find that particle they theorized about I just think "wow cool those guys are pretty smart" and move on. So yes not all science is equal but only people with training/knowledge in a particular field could really understand that area and be qualified to debate it. 
 
Your argument about "most scientists don't study evolution in detail" doesn't make sense to me. Why would most scientist study any field that they are not pursuing in detail? That's why they have specialists in that field. However there are a lot of Evolutionary Biologists studying the field this very moment. I trained with quite a few of them. There is active research, experiments, publications, etc. happening as we speak. It's actually a rather active area of research as it connects to many other fields like medicine, ecology, development, etc. So ya don't quite see your point. 
 
God I guess is the wild card. It's your interpretation of his words I suppose. I don't think anyone one of us can truly say they understand what God means in the bible. I don't see the bible in odds with evolution. So to me evolution is just another scientific field. It might as well be oceanography. I certainly don't seem many forums debating oceanography. 


#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 August 2016 - 02:28 PM

 

 

 Tassadar: If you have not, you should since it seems you have strong opinions about it. If you haven't then quite frankly, in my opinion, you do not have enough knowledge to actually stand on to debate the subject (but of course you have the right to do so). I want to be clear, I'm all for self learning and self education. However the internet can be a very polarizing place. There is so much misinformation on here that it can make you believe pretty much anything depending on your source.

 

Red highlight: Argumentum ad hominem. To focus on the arguer instead of the argument, is basically a fallacy of diversion.

 

"if you have not formally studied evolution then you don't have knowledge to debate it" is a non-sequitur. It does not logically follow, there are many people who do not formally study things that have a good knowledge of those subjects. A better way for you to qualify that you are knowledgeable about evolution is to ask questions you have learnt about it, and see if we know the answers. If we know the answers that would satisfy that we have the knowledge to debate it, then your mind is at ease, yes?

 

I have not formally studied evolution, fire away!....I'll try and answer as best I can...If you can't ask any, then in "my opinion" that makes you full of wind.

 

 

 

Tassadar: There is so much misinformation on here that it can make you believe pretty much anything depending on your source

 

Again, this is an ad-hominem allusion, because yet again you presume that he doesn't have a human brain like you, because you have a bachelors in evolution. Lol. What makes you think that someone you don't even yet know, automatically doesn't have basic intelligence to discern a good source from a bad one?

 

Of course, if there is "so much misinformation on here" you won't have a problem supporting your statement, or else I am afraid you become yet another fly-by-night bare assertion-troll.

 

Khan...it's time to put up or shut up. If there is some secret to evolution, then please ask us the questions we need to be asked since we don't have any formal training in evo-bio.

 

Are you only going to make bare assertions, or are you going to actually prove your claims? You say a lot about debate and our knowledge-level, but as of yet, have offered no knowledge, nor any debate content. You were shown the flaw in your false comparisons, yet repeated your argument. (Argumentum ad nauseam).



#13 Tassadar

Tassadar

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • California

Posted 28 August 2016 - 02:35 PM

Welcome to the forum.  :)

 

Evolution isn't singled out, medicine is questioned as well (AIDS, Vaccinations, Epilepsy, ...), if you look for it.

 

But evolution is focused upon here because it is contradicts the simplistic interpretations of the Bible, which are most easily taught. They're afraid that accepting a different interpretation will invalidate the Bible as a whole and thus reject evolution rather then combine it with God. If holding through to creationisms, a God is by definition necessary so that's a safe position to be.

As can be seen in the replies above.

 

Unfortunately not everyone has the resources (time/money/..) for formal training in every field they claim to be interested in. Even if they could have access to formal training, you should realize that not all formal training is as good. For some people having no good formal education is something they regret and they aren't always so happy about it when that is pointed out.  ;)

Hi Fjuri!
 
Thanks for your responses.
 
I agree not all formal training is good and not everyone can get formally trained in every single subject they like. But I do think if you are going to refute the hard work of generations of experts in a particular field, you need a little more behind you than reading blogs on the internet. For example I like astronomy as a hobby. I don't have the time to take formal classes but I read a lot about it on my own. But if I did disagree fundamentally with some theory of astronomy and I was very passionate about it, my first thought isn't "well I must be right and the majority of experts in the field are wrong". Because most likely I am wrong. At that point if you do want to really pursue it, then I think you would need formal training. Well for most people, who knows maybe some crazy geniuses out there that never got any formal education but will solve the mysteries of the universe. But for most people I think this is true.


#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 August 2016 - 02:49 PM

 

 

Tassadar: There is no false comparison trap

 

But there is, and I shown why, whereas your debate-response was, "there is no false comparison trap". If in a court of law I explain why something is a false comparison, like I did, and proved my point, do you think a bare-assertion that "there isn't" would count? The judge would laugh and say; "Oh my goodness SONNY - don't you know this is where you have to PROVE your claim,..did you expect to come in here declare innocence then walk out a free person because you SAID you were innocent!"

 

 

 

Your false dichotomy stuff I think is off base

 

So are the troops on leave, what has that go to do with the price of tea in China? If you don't know what a false dichotomy is, how can you know I'm off base? It's clear you don't know, didn't they teach any basic logic at the pre-teen school for bachelors cup-a-soups? (jesting) ;)

 

 

 

 Tassadar: Well for most people, who knows maybe some crazy geniuses out there that never got any formal education but will solve the mysteries of the universe.

 

Finally, you speak some sense. That genius is God - He made the universe....oh let me guess, He hasn't got a PHD so He doesn't know what He's talking about?  :rotfl3: 

 

 

 

Tassadar:  But I do think if you are going to refute the hard work of generations of experts in a particular field, you need a little more behind you than reading blogs on the internet. For example I like astronomy as a hobby. I don't have the time to take formal classes but I read a lot about it on my own. But if I did disagree fundamentally with some theory of astronomy and I was very passionate about it, my first thought isn't "well I must be right and the majority of experts in the field are wrong".

 

That is an absurd statement. You have immediately INVENTED an opinion of our history, and concluded this is how we came to disbelieve evolution. CODSWALLOP. Just because you come up with an idea of what you think we done, and how we learnt a few blogs then dismissed evolution, doesn't mean you are right. Some of us have considered these things over many years.

 

Here you don't know the mistake you are making. This time it is elephant-hurling, with "generations of experts".

 

You say a lot of things but don't seem to really do anything but state them, then expect them to be accepted as universal truth. 


  • Tassadar likes this

#15 Tassadar

Tassadar

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • California

Posted 28 August 2016 - 02:55 PM

Red highlight: Argumentum ad hominem. To focus on the arguer instead of the argument, is basically a fallacy of diversion.

 

"if you have not formally studied evolution then you don't have knowledge to debate it" is a non-sequitur. It does not logically follow, there are many people who do not formally study things that have a good knowledge of those subjects. A better way for you to qualify that you are knowledgeable about evolution is to ask questions you have learnt about it, and see if we know the answers. If we know the answers that would satisfy that we have the knowledge to debate it, then your mind is at ease, yes?

 

I have not formally studied evolution, fire away!....I'll try and answer as best I can...If you can't ask any, then in "my opinion" that makes you full of wind.

 

 

Again, this is an ad-hominem allusion, because yet again you presume that he doesn't have a human brain like you, because you have a bachelors in evolution. Lol. What makes you think that someone you don't even yet know, automatically doesn't have basic intelligence to discern a good source from a bad one?

 

Of course, if there is "so much misinformation on here" you won't have a problem supporting your statement, or else I am afraid you become yet another fly-by-night bare assertion-troll.

 

Khan...it's time to put up or shut up. If there is some secret to evolution, then please ask us the questions we need to be asked since we don't have any formal training in evo-bio.

 

Are you only going to make bare assertions, or are you going to actually prove your claims? You say a lot about debate and our knowledge-level, but as of yet, have offered no knowledge, nor any debate content. You were shown the flaw in your false comparisons, yet repeated your argument. (Argumentum ad nauseam).

 

I am not very familiar with laws or arguments but I will defer to your expertise. I actually don't see why it needs to be even that complicated. 

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with saying if you don't have the knowledge then you aren't qualified to argue the subject....while I agree quantifying knowledge is important...that is precisely why we have degrees and testing/classes to obtain degrees. I'd rather not give you a test on evolution...haha that doesn't seem like it would be fun for either of us. Plus I don't think I'm qualified to judge your knowledge on the subject. But I do know the vast majority of experts studying the subject do believe in evolution...so even if yo didn't and you were in fact an expert, that wouldn't be very convincing to me.

 

I think you are misrepresenting my comment mike the wiz. My bachelor's degree has nothing to do with it...in fact that really isn't enough to even be considered my area of expertise. I was just introducing my self clearly so people know where I'm coming from. Humans have a brain yes. We can all think. But our areas of expertise can be different depending on how long you have been thinking/studying about a certain subject. Do you really think everyone can discern good sources from bad ones? I certainly don't. I have enough experience in my field to know that misinformation on the internet can actually lead people to make decisions that may even cost them their lives. 

 

I think I should make the point I was trying to make there as clear as possible. 

 

Question 1: Do you trust a physician who learned stuff from the internet or one with a formal medical degree?

Question 2: If 90% of physicians tell you one thing and 10% tell you something else, who are you more inclined to believe?


  • mike the wiz likes this

#16 Tassadar

Tassadar

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • California

Posted 28 August 2016 - 03:02 PM

But there is, and I shown why, whereas your debate-response was, "there is no false comparison trap". If in a court of law I explain why something is a false comparison, like I did, and proved my point, do you think a bare-assertion that "there isn't" would count? The judge would laugh and say; "Oh my goodness SONNY - don't you know this is where you have to PROVE your claim,..did you expect to come in here declare innocence then walk out a free person because you SAID you were innocent!"

 

 

So are the troops on leave, what has that go to do with the price of tea in China? If you don't know what a false dichotomy is, how can you know I'm off base? It's clear you don't know, didn't they teach any basic logic at the pre-teen school for bachelors cup-a-soups? (jesting) ;)

 

 

Finally, you speak some sense. That genius is God - He made the universe....oh let me guess, He hasn't got a PHD so He doesn't know what He's talking about?  :rotfl3: 

 

 

That is an absurd statement. You have immediately INVENTED an opinion of our history, and concluded this is how we came to disbelieve evolution. CODSWALLOP. Just because you come up with an idea of what you think we done, and how we learnt a few blogs then dismissed evolution, doesn't mean you are right. Some of us have considered these things over many years.

 

Here you don't know the mistake you are making. This time it is elephant-hurling, with "generations of experts".

 

You say a lot of things but don't seem to really do anything but state them, then expect them to be accepted as universal truth. 

Dude mike I also tell you my reasons...you just decided not to quote them =/ my explanations are literally after the part you quoted....

 

God is a genius but you are interpreting his words. I interpret them differently. I see no problems with the bible and evolution. Wile god is infallible, man certainly is. Our history is strife with persecution of scientists under the guise of going against our holy book. It turns out the only thing we were persecuting is going against the current religious paradigm. 

 

Generations do make scientific progress. Physics, astronomy, medicine, etc were refined over generations. So I don't really see your point. The current scientists make progress on the shoulders of those that came before them. 



#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 August 2016 - 03:04 PM

Tassadar, I appreciate your good attitude. I have put you through the Kirk maelstrom and you have shined, I have tested you in the fire of my shining smite-staff.... We shall discuss things on a more cordial level, since you seem like a reasonable chap.

 

 

Tassadar: Question 1: Do you trust a physician who learned stuff from the internet or one with a formal medical degree?

Question 2: If 90% of physicians tell you one thing and 10% tell you something else, who are you more inclined to believe?

 

I think this could represent a false-dichotomy if the law of the excluded middle does not apply. 

 

What I mean is - when I listen to an evolutionary scientist, read what he says, think about his arguments, the disagreement is by a degree of portion. That is to say, I will probably accept a lot of things the evolutionist says;

 

1. I accept he is a genuinely qualified person which I can respect, and won't correct him on any details of evolutionary theory.

2. I will accept perhaps some of his evidence and argument.

 

I also accept a lot of things the theory of evolution argues. I accept natural selection, mutations, gene flow, changes in allele frequencies, beneficial mutations, adaptation (micro evolution), genetic drift, possibly exaptation for some instances, my goodness, there is actually a LOT I would agree with, what I wouldn't agree with is his final conclusion that we all stem from a monophyletic trunk, on a phylogenetic tree. (one single ancestor), and that all kinds of animals and plant life are related on that tree of life.

 

(a good example of a beneficial mutation, is the heterozygous allele for sickled cells, in helping to cure malaria, which I regard as an example of a beneficial mutation. Also there is the anti-freeze fish. Those true facts are impressive, certainly some change can be shown. I would not pretend otherwise.)

 

So is it fair, if I can accept maybe 75% of what the expert says, to portray it in this fashion? I think your argument makes out I reject the whole of the studies of the evolutionary scientists, over generations, when creationists would accept PARTS of evolution but not the WHOLE. 

 

Beware the fallacy of composition - just because individual parts of a plane cannot fly, doesn't mean the plane as a whole cannot fly. With evolution it's the opposite, the parts fly but the WHOLE doesn't fly. ;) Ultimately even an evolutionary scientist doesn't have a PHD in truth


  • Tassadar likes this

#18 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,730 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 August 2016 - 03:22 PM

Hi guys, I’m new to the forum.

Welcome to the group, Tass.

 

I'm curious, why is it that evolution is singled out?

My observation is that most of the objections are based on:

1)  Evolution does not require a God.

2)  The long time frame  and most of all....

3)  It is in conflict with a literal reading of Genesis.



#19 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 August 2016 - 03:35 PM

Piasan, what about evolution-doubters that don't necessarily accept a literal Genesis, such as Hugh Ross, Stephen Meyer, and an assortment of various agnostics, some of whom believe aliens sperminated planet earth. Are they disputing evo because of Genesis? :gotcha: 


  • Tassadar likes this

#20 Tassadar

Tassadar

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • California

Posted 28 August 2016 - 03:59 PM

Welcome to the group, Tass.

 

My observation is that most of the objections are based on:

1)  Evolution does not require a God.

2)  The long time frame  and most of all....

3)  It is in conflict with a literal reading of Genesis.

Hi piasan!

 

Thanks for the welcome. 

 

I see. My interpretations has always been that evolution could be a process put in place by God. Like physics. Though I have heard some stuff here and there about intelligent design a few years back. I guess I didn't quite pay much attention to it in a while. To each his own I suppose. I can see why the timescale bothers people. Goku had mentioned there are quite a few people here that are not in agreement with the current understanding of the age of the earth and evolution pretty much requires the earth to be billions of years old. 







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: evolution, science, theory, creation, bible

1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Blitzking