Jump to content


Photo

Question On Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
65 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 February 2012 - 11:32 AM


But my real question is how can I give arguments against Evolution?

You can't unless you learn it and understand it. The problem most creationists have arguing against evolution is that they don't actually understand what it is, so that those of us that at least understand the basics, are left scratching our heads just wondering where on earth to start.

That is the usual cop-out answer by some atheists who don’t actually take the time to find out what “Most” Creationists understand and/or know. Not only that, but yours is simply another prejudicial blanket statement and is basically an ‘Ad Hominem’ abusive (nothing more than mudslinging). These atheists often make this type of statement because they are either too lazy to find out what “most creationists” actually know, OR they have to actual argument to refute “most creationists” assertions.

You made the assertion; therefor it is incumbent upon YOU to:

1- Provide a definitive number for "Most Creationists" that supports your assertion.
2- Provide actual and factual evidence showing "Most Creationist" not understanding what evolution is (and not simply YOUR take on evolution).
3- Provide actual factual evidence (empirical scientific evidence to be precise) that proves YOUR take on evolution being correct.



Most of the time all you guys have is a bunch of misconceptions that don't resemble what the ToE is because all you've ever heard or read is from creationists web sites that, well, let's be tactful, are a bit wrong most of the time.

Well, enlighten us, instead of instead of flinging accusations like broad swaths of paint on an artist’s canvas, with a brush that would be better served to apply paint the side of a barn. And, be courteous enough to specify if you are attempting to support micro or macro evolution (and please understand the difference between the two in your attempt).

Know your enemy and argue the facts from there.

Quoting “the art of war”, although sometimes applicable, isn’t needed when you are simply slinging mud. I would suggest that you take your own advice. It would serve you better here.


don't see how someone is supposed to say that whale and horse evolution is false. In the video he showed there were skulls, knee caps, hip bones, and even a pelvis.


Being an independent, free thinking person, you'll consider the evidence you're presented with objectively and decide whether it holds water or not. Innocent until proven guilty remember.


Again, you’d be better served to act on your own advice…

#22 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 28 February 2012 - 11:48 AM

I don't put any faith in anything. You appear to think that I care which way any of this goes, I don't, I simply watch with interest.


Oh, playing the observant bystander are we? You plaster the whole forum with your incredibly biased views and then try to pretend that you are unattached from any kind of faith. Are you from mars? Look, you won't get anywhere by being dishonest. Everyone has faith in something, no one is free from bias, and even atheists are prone to be religiously motivated for their choice of worldview.

You say you don't put faith in anything and then you go on to say that the fossil bones are millions of years old. That, my friend, IS faith. There is nothing factual that proves that these bones are millions of years old. You have to apply faith to reach that conclusion.

#23 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 28 February 2012 - 11:59 AM

Oh, playing the observant bystander are we? You plaster the whole forum with your incredibly biased views and then try to pretend that you are unattached from any kind of faith. Are you from mars? Look, you won't get anywhere by being dishonest. Everyone has faith in something, no one is free from bias, and even atheists are prone to be religiously motivated for their choice of worldview.

You say you don't put faith in anything and then you go on to say that the fossil bones are millions of years old. That, my friend, IS faith. There is nothing factual that proves that these bones are millions of years old. You have to apply faith to reach that conclusion.

Tangle is a your typical new atheist. They tend to use shallow philosophical arguments that are derived from a lack of critical thinking. They pretend to be unbiased, but you can tell in his post that he already made up his mind a long time ago. New atheists will always refuse to admit that they have faith in anything, even in a general sense and they always try to say that they are completely objective, which is never true of any human being.

I'll be back later to respond to his banter.

#24 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 February 2012 - 12:11 PM



No you are wrong. Inferences are not scientific"...............Inferences are ONLY ever used in the creation of a hypothesis.



Scientists generally regard a hypothesis as scientific.



Actually, that is a misstatement that misconstrues the contextual meaning of what Gilbo was stating.

First – a hypothesis is nothing more than “a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation”. It IS NOT verified, or validated as anything other than a “guess”, or a “feeling” needing further investigation. Therefore, it is not, in any way ‘evidence’ for anything. In fact, in logic (that on which science is based), an hypothesis is nothing more than “the antecedent of a conditional statement”. Therefore NEITHER an ‘inference’, nor a ‘hypothesis’ are validated as facts or evidence.

Second – An inference, in the reasoning process, is “the process of reasoning from a premise to a conclusion” sans empirical evidence. In other words, it is unverified by the empirical scientific method, and is therefore unsubstantiated.

Conclusion: Your attempt at refuting Gilbo’s statement by saying “Scientists generally regard a hypothesis as scientific” is a nonsensical statement, because; although both inferences AND hypotheses’ are used IN science (to formulate an idea), they are in no way empirical in science, as they are both nothing more than hunches (lacking validated scientific fact).



Their use in anything else denotes that thing to pseudoscience, or outside the bounds of scientific inquiry, (which means it isn't science)



Inferences are, of course, a form of evidence. Whether they build to produce a proof is debatable, but certainly no real scientist would be able to rely on pure inference. In those circumstances, the hypothesis would probably remain unproven pending more information, a bit like your dinosaur jelly.



Inferences are, in no way, a form of evidence. Inferences are, by definition “the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation”.


In LOGIC (which is an “abstract” thought process), an inference, by definition, is “any process of reasoning from premises to a conclusion”.

An inference ‘ceases’ to be an inference when it is validated as a “FACT” via the empirical scientific method.

#25 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 February 2012 - 12:16 PM

Tangle is a your typical new atheist. They tend to use shallow philosophical arguments that are derived from a lack of critical thinking. They pretend to be unbiased, but you can tell in his post that he already made up his mind a long time ago. New atheists will always refuse to admit that they have faith in anything, even in a general sense and they always try to say that they are completely objective, which is never true of any human being.

I'll be back later to respond to his banter.


Well actually I'm quite an old atheist.

I have made up my mind, obviously, as I declare myself to be an atheist.
I think I'm pretty objective as I have a lot of training in being so, but then everyone thinks they're a good driver. When I say I have faith in nothing, I mean I do not have faith in the ToE - a scientific theory is not something you need to have faith in.



#26 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 28 February 2012 - 12:28 PM

Well actually I'm quite an old atheist.

I have made up my mind, obviously, as I declare myself to be an atheist.
I think I'm pretty objective as I have a lot of training in being so, but then everyone thinks they're a good driver. When I say I have faith in nothing, I mean I do not have faith in the ToE - a scientific theory is not something you need to have faith in.

You do know what a new atheist is right?

No amount of training will cause someone to be objective, especially in philosophical matters. You do not have religious faith in evolution, but to trust anything, you must have faith in a general sense.

#27 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 February 2012 - 12:54 PM




Tangle is a your typical new atheist. They tend to use shallow philosophical arguments that are derived from a lack of critical thinking. They pretend to be unbiased, but you can tell in his post that he already made up his mind a long time ago. New atheists will always refuse to admit that they have faith in anything, even in a general sense and they always try to say that they are completely objective, which is never true of any human being.

I'll be back later to respond to his banter.


Well actually I'm quite an old atheist.

I have made up my mind, obviously, as I declare myself to be an atheist.
I think I'm pretty objective as I have a lot of training in being so, but then everyone thinks they're a good driver. When I say I have faith in nothing, I mean I do not have faith in the ToE - a scientific theory is not something you need to have faith in.



Actually, “New Atheism” has absolutely nothing to do with your age, or the length of time you’ve been an atheist. It is atheism as promulgated and propagandized in modernity by the likes of Dawkins, Smith, Hitchens (etc…)

Objectivity has a great deal to do with the lack of bias and the independency from individual perceptions. This can be claimed about certain specific viewpoints, but is rather hard to claim as a world-view. I would be rather interested concerning your objectivity when it comes to the materialistic atheist’s empirical scientific facts in relation to our origins (the universe, life, intelligence etc…).

Remember, we’re being objective… No subjectivity or faith statements. ;)

#28 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 February 2012 - 01:23 PM

My atheism predates Dawkins et al. By a good few years. There is no way to categorise it as 'new'.

I think you're going to have to pose your questions in bite sized chunks, like I said before, I'm not here to boil the ocean.
.


#29 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 28 February 2012 - 02:31 PM

There is no way to categorise it as 'new'.


Since you seem to be using the same arguments here as Dawkins et al then how are we supposed to recognize the "maturity" of you atheism. What arguments for atheism, borrowed from the time that "predates" Dawkins et al, when most people including scientists were believers, have you produced here? For someone who is 21, you seem to be decades before your time!

It would be nice to hear some examples of the "old" atheistic material you have studied, laid out clearly here before us to marvel at.

Ron asked you to give an account for the level of objectivity you apply when evaluating materialistic empirical scientific facts.

For someone who is so sure of himself, and who thinks they can just blurt out what they think creationists base their "faith" on, I would hardly think that something like that would exceed their conception of what a bite-sized chunk is!

But I guess I'm wrong. Tell us what you consider to be a bite sized chunk. We wouldn't want to boil any oceans here, would we?

#30 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 February 2012 - 02:53 PM


My atheism predates Dawkins et al. By a good few years.



Really… Richard Dawkins was born 26 March 1941; that was quite a long time ago. And he claimed to have become an atheist in his mid-teens (the mid 1950’s).


There is no way to categorise it as 'new'.



As a matter of fact, ‘New Atheism’ had already been ‘categorized’, and Spectre’s assertion was based upon your philosophical bent as viewed in your writings (posts in this forum). You may want to do a little research before you attempt to dismiss something out-of-hand.



I think you're going to have to pose your questions in bite sized chunks



Actually, the questions were posed in a succinct, concise and “objective” manner. In other words, they were posited in “bite sized chunks”, and are very easily answered, in an ‘objective’ manner.



I'm not here to boil the ocean.


No need to boil the ocean just try being consistent in your assertions, and answering where you are wrong, misinformed, lack dutiful knowledge, or are in need of help.

#31 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 28 February 2012 - 03:07 PM

a scientific theory is not something you need to have faith in.


Ok, what do you need then?

If a theory doesn't involve any element of faith whatsoever, then what distinguishes it from being a fact?

#32 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 February 2012 - 03:09 PM

Since you seem to be using the same arguments here as Dawkins et al then how are we supposed to recognize the "maturity" of you atheism. What arguments for atheism did you borrow from the time that "predates" Dawkins et al, when most people, including scientists, were believers? For someone who is 21, you seem to be decades before your time! It would be nice to hear some examples of the "old" atheistic material you have studied.


There is no such thing as new atheism - that's just a slogan. Atheism wasn't born with the God Delusion you know.

I haven't heard a new argument for or against God in 30 years. Most of the the big questions have been argued for centuries, some since the dawn of civilisation. To no avail. Science is providing some evidence that religious beliefs are bunk but it can never prove the non-existence of God.

But all this talk of argument and objective reason is just a smokescreen. My origional belief in god when I was a child wasn't arrived at by reason it was taught and learnt and my rejection of it wasn't after years of careful study, it was just a simple realisation that it was simply embarassing nonsense.

Oh, and as I confessed, earlier, I'm not 21, I'm considerably older. (i thought it an impertinent question so it got an impertinat response.)

#33 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 February 2012 - 03:16 PM

Ok, what do you need then?

If a theory doesn't involve any element of faith whatsoever, then what distinguishes it from being a fact?


You want to elevate the ToE to something akin to a God. I'm afraid I can't help you do that. I'm guessing that you don't torture yourself with faith questions about Germ Theory or gravitational Theory, why worry so much about the ToE? It's just another branch of science, albeit one that is extreemly well developed.

#34 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 February 2012 - 03:38 PM



Really… Richard Dawkins was born 26 March 1941; that was quite a long time ago. And he claimed to have become an atheist in his mid-teens (the mid 1950’s).

He also didn't publish the God Delusion until 2006, prior to his launch into the God bothering business he was a rather good biologist which was all I knew him for at the time. I think you'd say that what the PR bunnies for the book publishers have helpfully labelled new atheism was a 21st century thing. I have been an atheist for an awful lot longer than that.

As a matter of fact, ‘New Atheism’ had already been ‘categorized’, and Spectre’s assertion was based upon your philosophical bent as viewed in your writings (posts in this forum).

it seems that his analysis and assumptions were wrong then.

[color=#000000]Actually, the questions were posed in a succinct, concise and “objective” manner. In other words, they were posited in “bite sized chunks”, and are very easily answered, in an ‘objective’ manner.


I was asked

"I would be rather interested concerning your objectivity when it comes to the materialistic atheist’s empirical scientific facts in relation to our origins (the universe, life, intelligence etc…)."

Which is a boil the ocean request if there ever was one.

#35 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 February 2012 - 03:44 PM




Since you seem to be using the same arguments here as Dawkins et al then how are we supposed to recognize the "maturity" of you atheism. What arguments for atheism did you borrow from the time that "predates" Dawkins et al, when most people, including scientists, were believers? For someone who is 21, you seem to be decades before your time! It would be nice to hear some examples of the "old" atheistic material you have studied.



There is no such thing as new atheism - that's just a slogan.


No, it’s a philosophical movement. But I agree, tenants of it have been around quite a while. The difference is that the “New Atheists” are quite a bit more aggressive than some of the more passive atheists.


Atheism wasn't born with the God Delusion you know.


No one claimed that it was, and that’s where you’re missing the point on that issue. But the “New Atheism” and the “Bright’s” are a corollary of the thinking that went into the proponents of the philosophical movement.



I haven't heard a new argument for or against God in 30 years. Most of the the big questions have been argued for centuries, some since the dawn of civilisation. To no avail.


And I haven’t heard a materialistic answer that refutes God either.


Science is providing some evidence that religious beliefs are bunk but it can never prove the non-existence of God.


Really? Can you provide these evidences to back up your assertion that “religious beliefs are bunk” then? Or like your other posts, or are you relying on the “saying it’s so makes it so” (Assertum Non Est Demonstratum) logical fallacy. Or are you going to merely repeat more slogans?






But all this talk of argument and objective reason is just a smokescreen.


So objective reasoning is just a smokescreen then? That’s interesting.




My origional belief in god when I was a child wasn't arrived at by reason it was taught and learnt and my rejection of it wasn't after years of careful study, it was just a simple realisation that it was simply embarassing nonsense.



And my original belief in atheism until I was in my early twenties wasn’t arrived at by reason either, it was learnt as well. Further, my conversion to Christianity was after careful studies into the historical sciences, the empirical scientific method, logic and critical thinking. I came to the simple realization that the is absolutely no credibility in the materialistic mindset that is atheism. Atheism has absolutely NO answers, just more questions based upon the denial of the actual evidences.


Oh, and as I confessed, earlier, I'm not 21, I'm considerably older. (i thought it an impertinent question so it got an impertinat response.)



No, but you did make the claim that you were older than Dawkins. And yet, as were all your other claims, it goes unproven. It seems like the impertinence has been on your behalf.

#36 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:08 PM



Really… Richard Dawkins was born 26 March 1941; that was quite a long time ago. And he claimed to have become an atheist in his mid-teens (the mid 1950's).



He also didn't publish the God Delusion until 2006, prior to his launch into the God bothering business he was a rather good biologist which was all I knew him for at the time. I think you'd say that what the PR bunnies for the book publishers have helpfully labelled new atheism was a 21st century thing. I have been an atheist for an awful lot longer than that.


Once again, you dither on the point.

First - The point wasn’t “when” the God Delusion was published, but rather that Spectre said that your claims were those commonly espoused by the “NEW” Atheist’s philosophical movement. You mistakenly took it to mean “AGE”, but that point was corrected for you by at least TWO different people.

Second – You claim to be older than Richard Dawkins. Now, it’s not that I’m all that concerned with your age, OR who you predate. The point is, it wasn’t the point. It doesn’t matter how long you’ve been an atheist, as the NEW in the New Atheist philosophy has NOTHING to do with age.




As a matter of fact, 'New Atheism' had already been 'categorized', and Spectre's assertion was based upon your philosophical bent as viewed in your writings (posts in this forum).


it seems that his analysis and assumptions were wrong then.


I never said his analysis was correct. I was simply correcting YOUR misunderstanding by pointing you in the right direction.



Actually, the questions were posed in a succinct, concise and "objective" manner. In other words, they were posited in "bite sized chunks", and are very easily answered, in an 'objective' manner.



I was asked

"I would be rather interested concerning your objectivity when it comes to the materialistic atheist's empirical scientific facts in relation to our origins (the universe, life, intelligence etc…)."

Which is a boil the ocean request if there ever was one.



Once again, they were very simple, concise and succinct questions, that are all answered with one word each. Which begs the question; why are you skirting the questions with such a slogan?

#37 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:18 PM

You want to elevate the ToE to something akin to a God.


No. I just wanted you to answer the question without equivocating, but if you think that "facts" are akin to God then I can live with that.

I'm guessing that you don't torture yourself with faith questions about Germ Theory or gravitational Theory, why worry so much about the ToE? It's just another branch of science, albeit one that is extreemly well developed.


I don't torture myself about the ToE, your imagination is way too vivid. I actually enjoy discussing these issues. But why are you trying to throw other theories in to the mix? Is this just another evasive action simply because you lack the ability to provide evidence that the ToE is "well developed"?
  • MamaElephant likes this

#38 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:19 PM

And I haven’t heard a materialistic answer that refutes God either.

Why would you expect it to?

Really? Can you provide these evidences to back up your assertion that “religious beliefs are bunk” then? Or like your other posts, or are you relying on the “saying it’s so makes it so” (Assertum Non Est Demonstratum) logical fallacy. Or are you going to merely repeat more slogans?

In time, we'll go through them - be patient grasshopper. But as a general assertion to be going on with, the ToE itself is the evidence that a literal belief in the Christian biblical stories is false. And the bible was thought to be literally true for most of its life. (Hence all the fuss made by Darwin at the time which, from the evidence of this forum, is still causing consternation.)


So objective reasoning is just a smokescreen then? That’s interesting.

Mostly yes. Few people arrive at their beliefs by reason, the vast majority are born into them. If they question any further, they rationalise. (Yes, that's another set of assertions and claims and no I'm not going to thrash google into providing evidence for truisms - you just need to get used to that with me.)




And my original belief in atheism until I was in my early twenties wasn’t arrived at by reason either, it was learnt as well.

there you go.....

Atheism has absolutely NO answers.

That would be because all atheism is is a non belief in god. It doesn't pretend to have answers. It doesn't even have questions. Why on earth would you expect it to?

[color=#000000]No, but you did make the claim that you were older than Dawkins. And yet, as were all your other claims, it goes unproven. It seems like the impertinence has been on your behalf.

If you look back, you'll see that despite all your training in empirical scientific method, logic and critical thinking, you leapt to a conclusion based on a pre-concieved bias and not surprisingly, got it wrong ;-)

#39 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:26 PM

Oh, and as I confessed, earlier, I'm not 21, I'm considerably older. (i thought it an impertinent question so it got an impertinat response.)


What exactly was so impertinent about the question that you felt justified to lie?

#40 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:28 PM

There is no such thing as new atheism - that's just a slogan. Atheism wasn't born with the God Delusion you know.

I haven't heard a new argument for or against God in 30 years. Most of the the big questions have been argued for centuries, some since the dawn of civilisation. To no avail. Science is providing some evidence that religious beliefs are bunk but it can never prove the non-existence of God.

But all this talk of argument and objective reason is just a smokescreen. My origional belief in god when I was a child wasn't arrived at by reason it was taught and learnt and my rejection of it wasn't after years of careful study, it was just a simple realisation that it was simply embarassing nonsense.

Oh, and as I confessed, earlier, I'm not 21, I'm considerably older. (i thought it an impertinent question so it got an impertinat response.)


Yeah a bit hard to do when you claim to be 21..... Why lie on your profile?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users