Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist? chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 43 (view)

Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist? Posted: 1/26/2006 3:39:59 PM
"When you say evolutionist do you mean believe in Darwin's theory which has not been proved." When you say "proved" are you refering to the epistemic truth-value of absolute truth, coming from an approach of bivalent logic, meaning A is either true or false and the principle of the excluded middle applies, or are you using it in terms of scientific methodology which is about the accuracy of scientific models based upon empirical evidence and logical coherence? Because according to the former, NOTHING can be proved as absolute truth. According to the latter, Evolution (modern Evolutionary theory, bringing up Darwin's century and a half old text is a straw man fallacy. Scientific theories are collaborative and continually refined.) is true. The evidence is overwhelming. edit- Late beat me to the punch. LOL

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 39 (view)

Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist? Posted: 1/26/2006 3:21:32 PM
"So the “Ape-Man” link is a myth and false?" That depends what you mean by link. If you are refering to the "missing link" idea, yes that is false. If you mean it in a vague sense then there is a link. We share a lot of common DNA- about 98% in fact. That is because we share a fairly recent (recent in geologic time) common ancestor. "Then what are we directly evolved from?" Even this is something of a misunderstanding. You are thinking of it in linear terms as if you could follow a lineage from single-celled organisms to humans accounting for all species along the way. Evolution doesn't work that way. Think of it more like a tree with endless branching at various nodes as you continue through time. Bear in mind that over 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct, and only a small percentage of those happened to die in conditions that allowed for their remains to be fossilized, so there are many species in history that have left no paleontological evidence, but their existence can be inferred. Let me give you an analogy to better understand how we can fill in gaps with some confidence. Imagine a 2000 piece puzzle of the Mona Lisa. After putting it together it turns out that only 30% of the pieces were actually in the box, but, after assembling them it is blatantly clear that what you have is a picture of the Mona Lisa. Now there is an avant-garde painting by Marcel Duchamp which is a faithful reproduction of the original Mona Lisa, only it has a beard and mustache. Now you happen to find some of the missing pieces under the couch, and when you place them in the puzzle, it becomes clear that a detail that you assumed (no beard and mustache) was actually in error, but the overall picture is still Mona Lisa. As our knowledge of genetics increases, or as we uncover previously unknown paleontological evidence, we are continually able to fill in missing pieces, and, although, details may change, the over all portrait of Evolution remains. Every missing piece provided, from various disciplines, fits like a puzzle piece. So much remains to be uncovered in genetics that, undoubtedly, more puzzle pieces will keep turning up, and we may actually be able eventually to genetically triangulate pieces that are missing paleontologically. As of now, our direct ancestor most closely related to us and chimpanzees, is inconclusive. We do know, though, from evidence, that the majority of branches of the primate line are now extinct, and later, the same is true of the hominid line. Following is a reprint from another post of mine. Rather than restate everything, I'm just pasting it here. Some of the issues are relevant, but not all, so bear with me but it should help to further clear this up: Actually, this brings up two very important points, (and this is simply a tangent and not a direct response to your conjecture; I'll come back around to that) which I shall call the fallacy of Essentialism and the fallacy of dichotomies. Essentialism is the Platonic notion that everything we experience represents some ideal form of that thing that exists "out there." This is the fallacy that many fall into when they don't understand how speciation can occur. Our brains like to form borders. By nature, we separate things into autonomous objects, and we even tend to do this when considering abstract distinctions. Taxonomic classification is one of these instances, and it is important to remember that this classification is largely arbitrary. Kingdoms, classes, phyla only exist because we decided to classify organisms that were morphologically dissimilar. Nature has no such classifications. To understand this consider the idea of the species ring. This is a phenomenon which has been observed in various biospecies (meaning species that are still extant as opposed to paleospecies.) Let's say a species of bird is quite similar to a bird in a neighboring habitat, but different enough that obviously some genetic isolation has occurred, but the two are genetically similar enough that they can still interbreed. In another habitat over, there is yet another somewhat isolated deme of birds and they are similar enough to their neighbors to interbreed. If we continue to track demes of birds, when we get significantly far enough away, and take a member of a distant deme, it is dissimilar enough that it can not interbreed with the first species, but can with it's neighbor. Where does speciation occur? This is an observed phenomenon in many different species from birds to salamanders. Now if we take that geographical gradual change and apply it historically, bearing in mind that over 99% of all species are extinct, it is easy to see how we are left with the illusion of very distinct organisms. But again, in reality, they are only distinct because of the missing intermediaries. If every intermediary species that ever lived were still extant, we would see a dense soup of life; the similarities would be obvious, and taxonomic classification would be impossible. Now on to the fallacy of dichotomy, which is similar. Our brains love to split things in two. It is likely the first cognitive function to ever evolve and is a fundamental feature of our brains. A very primitive form of life would greatly benefit from the ability to separate night from day, up from down, cold from hot etc. As brains became more specialized and complex, they began to process the richer complexity of life, but every brain is not constructed anew. If you dissect the human brain, it falls into three main structures (more classification) the R-complex, which is nearly identical to a reptilian brain, the limbic system, which is nearly identical to all mammalian brains, and the neocortex, which is only hyper-developed in primates and especially in humans. Our more complex reasoning is built on top of earlier forms, not distinct from them. Think of the technological evolution of the computer as an analogy. All the wonderfully diverse and complicated tasks your computer can do are built over the original DOS core. Some programmers have said we should throw DOS out all together and start over, because we are simply building around flaws. Unfortunately we don't have the same avenue open to us with our brains. Dichotomous reasoning is fundamental to our brains, so it is important to always be vigilant of our tendency to fall into it. That's not to say it's not useful. Essentially formal bivalent logic is a very useful tool, but it's not necessarily representative of the rich, multivariate complexity of reality, which takes higher brain functions to appreciate.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 202 (view)

Does god exist? Posted: 1/26/2006 2:26:14 PM
"By the way "Science is at best an educated guess." Can you tell me who said that" Sounds familiar, but I don't. I do concur with the sentiment though. The operative word here is "educated." There is a big difference between guessing the moon is made of green cheese and developing a logically consistent model based on empirical observation. "But I'm a firm believer in knowing who you are talking with before you make bold statements." And I'm a firm believer in predicating rebuttals on the content of another's argument. It is plainly clear that your knowledge of scientific methodology is wanting. If that were not the case, you would not misuse scientific terms and principles and quote the theories of frauds. "By the way where did you get your degree in science?" Irrelevant. If you are saying this because I exposed the spurious credentials of Baugh then you entirely missed my point. When did I ever claim to have a degree in Physics from MIT for example? I routinely express the fact in the forum that I am an autodidact. Where I learned what I know, from the library or a university, is completely irrelevant. If you doubt my knowledge, then that should be predicated on nothing but the content of my posts. That is all I've done with you; I could care less if you have a degree or not. I only care that you have exposed your lack of knowledge in this area by your words. The relevant point about Baugh is not his lacking credentials, but the fact that he is a liar and a fraud. "and there are more scientist than you could ever emagine that use the Bible as a compass for their work." As an inspiration, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't care if a scientists casts bones for inspiration and some may. That is entirely different than predicating a theory on a metaphysical assumption while ignoring empirical evidence. That is what real scientists DON'T do. As I've stated before, there are many Christian scientists, there are many Hindu, Muslim, Pagan, Atheist, Agnostic, etc., etc., scientists. So what? The point is they all understand the important demarcation between their personal philosophical beliefs and the METHODOLOGY of science. Something you clearly don't. "I along with quite a few decided to open our eyes to new thing and new idea's," You have done quite the opposite. You have started from an assumed premise and ignored any evidence to the contrary. That is not an open mind. That is a dogmatic mind. I can't remember the name of the guy who said it, so sorry for not citing him, but the quote bears repitition- One should keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 23 (view)

define laziness... Posted: 1/26/2006 2:06:35 PM
Okay. I didn't catch that. I doubt the OP is lazy; I just want to point that out. As someone who has worked hard myself, I understand the desire to put his feet up. I was just pointing out to him that he need not eschew all productive activity. Some productive activities are relaxing. I recommend he pick up a musical instrument or become and avid reader or something, or someday, years down the line, he may find himself terribly bored and unfulfilled. "Now you've got me Feralizing..." I saw that exchange. I'm a fan of Feral's myself, and I love the neologism. I'll probably start using it too.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 21 (view)

define laziness... Posted: 1/26/2006 1:55:55 PM
"There is no such thing as an Innocent Bystander..." ???? What's your point? The reason I qualified myself as a non-believer was because the initial critique of idleness came from a religious perspective. I'm just saying I could see the point from a different perspective. I'm not sure why you singled that out.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 200 (view)

Does god exist? Posted: 1/26/2006 12:37:04 PM
"Just look at his typical response to those who believe in God. Why is he so angry? He says he has no problem with peoples' faith, yet those who express it are insulted and ridiculed by him." When have I attacked someone for their faith? Show me where I have done that. I attack people for denouncing science when they have no substantive knowledge of what science even is- like you have just done in your post. I have never attacked someone for simply expressing their belief in God. "He claims to know about the Bible, but has made no sense in sharing his beliefs or his "evidence" about it." I've read the Bible. I've never claimed to be an expert on it. The only comments I have made regarding the bible is that it is logically impossible to interpret it literally word for word. That is simply a fact. I have expressed no negative opinions towards it. You want to know what angers me? Exactly the type of prevaricating tactics that you are now using. Implying that I have said things I haven't. Yes, dishonesty, lies and logical fallacies anger me. I admit it. "And he probably thinks Believers are hippocrites" Nope, I do not. Without going into detail on the silly misunderstanding of science that you have just pasted, I will give you a general description of what you don't understand- science is a process, not a fixed dogmatic belief. Of course our understanding of nature grows and changes. Of course theories today are more refined than those a century ago, and they will be refined further still. Many theories that are proffered in the scientific community "touch on" an underlying causal mechanism, but not enough empirical data exists to frame it in a satisfactory analogy, which is what a theory is- a model- a representation of underlying causal mechanisms. When more data is available the analogies are replaced with better ones that are more explanatory in a larger frame of reference. Your post is very illustrative of your gross ignorance of what science even is. You guys still don't get what pisses me off. It is the denouncing of something you don't understand. And I'm not implying you don't have the ability to, only that you don't possess the knowledge. Instead of tilting at windmills, why don't you just educate yourself? It seems to be you who is arguing, by default, that you don't possess the ability.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 12 (view)

define laziness... Posted: 1/26/2006 11:35:18 AM
"I haven't been doing that much of anything, relatively speaking." I'm not bagging on you brother; I worked a couple of decades on and off in construction and I understand totally what you are saying. What I don't understand is why would anyone want to sit around and do nothing? You read don't you, or have hobbies, or exercise, or something? I mean, you don't literally sit around and do nothing, I hope. If that is the case, then I see the point of criticizing idleness, even as a non-believer. I'm willing to bet that you do something productive. How could anyone stand not to? I would go absolutely insane sitting around doing nothing of any productive value.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 115 (view)

What is reality and How can the Future Change the Past? Posted: 1/26/2006 10:10:06 AM
Wow, I haven't checked out this thread in a while. Excellent discussion, and Rake is doing a great job of explaining some of the more abstract concepts. I just wanted to chime in really quickly for polly- "I wonder if you can buy a String Theory for Dummies book." The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene is an excellent layman's book on the subject. Cheers all and keep it up. It's refreshing to see a substantive discussion in the forum.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 3308 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 1/26/2006 9:56:02 AM
"Tsur, 2weird, and several others have been on a nonstop attack" I don't know about Tsur's belief, but I get a pretty clear feeling from 2weirds posts, that he believes in at least some form of God, so your implication that he has attacked you for believing in God doesn't make sense. 'As most all know now, even wikipedia and talk.origins are now to be shown as flawed" You continue saying this; let me clear something up. Contribution to Wikipedia is open to the public. They regularly scour their site to weed out misinformation, but obviously some is going to get through; it's inevitable given the nature of the site. That being said, the vast majority of information is quite reliable. Should you double check it with other sources? Absolutely. In fact you should do that no matter what your source is. As for talk.origins, you are wrong. Everything I've seen on that site is an accurate representation of what the theory actually states. Their intention is to correct misinformation that is bandied about in our culture regarding the Theory of Evolution. Nowhere on that site do they promote ANY metaphysical belief such as Atheism or Ontological Naturalism. Their intent is only to correct wilful misinformation. "I fully agree, but I ALSO take exception to the misrepresentaion and lies sprung forth by certain ones trying to defend evolution as well." Nobody has lied defending Evolution. We only react angrily when science or the theory itself is misrepresented. I can't even count how many times people have posted misrepresentations of entropy on this thread, and that is only one small example of many misrepresentations. Whether it is intentional or simply the result of a lack of knowledge regarding science, I don't care. The end result is the same, which is the proliferation of misinformation. I and others here simply won't stand for that.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 21 (view)

some thoughts on naturalism Posted: 1/26/2006 9:24:12 AM
"I see no contradiction in science and a belief in the creator at all.." You are absolutely correct. In fact, for those who believe in God, you are doing him a disservice to ignore all the wonders of his creation as he chose to reveal it to you through our creative and analytical minds.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 19 (view)

some thoughts on naturalism Posted: 1/26/2006 9:21:25 AM
You just don't get it do you? I'm not suggesting you worship anything. Just show a little respect for the method and the minds that provided the standard of living that you enjoy. What is so hard to understand about that? How can you not see the hypocrisy of debasing science as you enjoy all the fruits of its labour? Did you read anything I posted? You too, are confounding cultural issues with a methodological tool. I have the same distaste for technological abuse that you do, but you are placing the onus in the wrong place. "the hypocrisy lies in the fact that I am forced to used a computer" No one is forcing you to post here. So we won't be seeing any more of you then I suspect?

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 3303 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 1/26/2006 9:04:27 AM
"Oh but, that's right, we must not DARE mentioned any kind of 'supreme being' in here, right?" CR, you've been in here long enough to know damn well that this is a strawman argument. Nobody has expressed any negativity towards theism. You can mention a supreme being all you like. It does not contradict Evolution. I have no disrespect for your philosophical beliefs, and you are welcome to share them. The only thing that makes people angry is misrepresentation and lies regarding science. Nobody is disrespecting your or anyone's belief in God.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 16 (view)

some thoughts on naturalism Posted: 1/26/2006 9:00:20 AM
"I was getting such a warm, relaxing feeling from the warmth of the sun and the grass between my toes and then BANG ..... the cold, sterile, repetition of METHOOOODOLOGGGY! Such a benefit to mankind ...." Again, why do you think there is any antipathy between science and "feeling from the warmth of the sun and the grass between my toes ?" You people are creating antipathy were there isn't any. Do you think scientists don't sit back and revel in the grandeur of nature, feel the grass between their toes and the sun on their face? The truth is that they revel in the grandeur of nature on a higher level then you can even fathom. Instead of harboring hostility for something you have no concept of, why don't you actually study a little science? There is nothing cold or sterile about it. It is a CELEBRATION of the wonder of nature. And, I can't make this point enough- anyone denigrating science over a COMPUTER is a F...U...C...K...I...N...G HYPOCRITE! There, for those of you who complain I'm too articulate- was that simplified enough?

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 26 (view)

Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist? Posted: 1/25/2006 10:33:20 PM
"Well don't some claim we evolved through the apes?" This is a comic book perception of a complex theory. Evolution states nothing of the kind. We share a common ancestor with apes, we are not evolved directly from apes. "I don't listen to the the non believing people who want to have a reason other than God for this world. I am pretty stubborn that way." Ah yes, this is what I call willful ignorance. You have already decided what to believe and learning is anathema. You have finished learning anything new, because it's all been answered. How arrogant and sad. Ignorant and proud of it; one of the more distasteful of all human behaviours. Not that you care, but Evolution and science in general does not contradict belief in God, only in a very narrow, literal, word-for-word interpretation of the Bible, which happens to be logically untenable, since the Bible offers different accounts of the same story in places. Even if divinely inspired, it is clearly at least partially metaphorical. There is nothing I detest more than someone who jams there fingers in their ears in the face of knowledge.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 13 (view)

some thoughts on naturalism Posted: 1/25/2006 10:19:48 PM
"It's great that science has brought us things like dental floss and microwave ovens" And, how about.... ummmmm.... let's see..... computers maybe? Hypocrisy is one of the basest sins of all. "but this is the heart of why I can't get excited or impressed with the scientific method..... I just can't." So I take it that, in the interest of honesty, you won't be posting anymore after you throw away your computer? You had better rent a roll-away-bin, actually, because you should include your television, stereo, lights, central air and heating, refrigerator, oh... and don't forget the dental floss. Where did you develop this bizarre hostility towards science? I'm just not getting through to you am I? Science is a METHOD... MEEEETTTHOOOOOD. It is a TOOL for investigating the natural world and learning it's secrets. When we learned that the earth revolved around the sun- that was science. We unlocked a secret about nature that wasn't self-evident before. You are confusing science with political and sociological abuse of technology. The issues you raise are cultural, and have nothing to do with science any more than it has anything to do with math. Do you understand that? Math also is a tool. Is Algebra to blame for the earth being "raped, poisoned and burned by a small majority of her inhabitants" as you put it? "I'm asking you, for the moment, to forget the cold, rigidly defined ''rules of science'' and open your mind to possibilities perhaps even beyond knowledge. From the unimaginable vastness and beauty of the cosmos to the immensely complex and intricately interconnected systems of biology how can we not be reminded that this world is somehow sacred ? Nature is silent but extremely powerful and seems to reflect a kind of wisdom all her own yet because of our great '' knowledge we have come to be unimpressed." You are so gravely confused, and I grow tired of this nonsense. Science is all about "the unimaginable vastness and beauty of the cosmo"s and the "immensely complex and intricately interconnected systems of biology." You are seriously confused and you're starting to irritate me. You are unimpressed because you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE. If you did, you would realize how amazing nature really is when you actually study her. There is nothing so amazing as how nature operates and how sublimely interconnected everything is. You are unimpressed, because you are ignorant of what you speak, and your opinions are based upon nothing but lack of knowledge and misunderstanding. "With the arrogant and reckless attitude that nature is just an anomaly we take whatever we want with no real intention of giving back." What does this have to do with science? You are carping about human nature, which can, admittedly, be base at times. It can also be magnificent, like when creative geniuses make such amazing contributions to humanity as the The Ninth Symphony or The Theory of Relativity. What is truly arrogant is someone who loudly proclaims negative opinions of something HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND. "perhaps we could choose to treat ourselves, others and our world with the respect due to something sacred." Great idea. How about you start by showing some respect for both the method, and the brilliant minds who employed it, that provided you a computer on which you can spew your misguided diatribe.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 196 (view)

Does god exist? Posted: 1/25/2006 8:00:15 PM
"I choose to believe in Elshadi." That's great. I have no problem with that and no desire to convince you otherwise. Lies, misrepresentations and misquoting of scientific theory and scientists, on the other hand, pisses me off. The creationist movement routinely uses these prevaricating tactics, and they get saps like you, who have no understanding of science, to spread their lies. Evolution is not atheistic- that is another of their lies. They prey on the public's naivete of science to spread their ideological virus. Congratulations, you are one of their zombie soldiers. You have been hoodwinked. Why don't you actually study science before yammering on with your negative opinions of something you don't even understand? How would you feel about someone denouncing the Bible if they have never even read it? I have no problem with your faith. Belief in God is not contradicted by Evolution or science in general. The creationism movement is perpetrated by a small group of fundamentalist literalists who insist that the Bible should be interpreted as literal word for word. That is a logical impossibility considering that the Bible gives contradictory accounts. Clearly, divinely inspired or not, it is at least somewhat metaphorical. There is nothing besides an absurd literal interpretation that obviates complementarity between science and religion.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 194 (view)

Does god exist? Posted: 1/25/2006 6:44:28 PM
Densebored- Son, you need to get your information from legitimate sources. I doubt you will absorb anything I tell you, so feel free to skip my post; it is really intended for those who are actually interested in learning the actual facts, not for the wilfully ignorant, meaning those who have no interest in furthering their knowledge beyond what they have already decided to be true, regardless of the actual evidence. First- let's examine the "credentials" of Dr. Baugh. According to his own claims he holds a degree in "Doctor of Philosophy in Theology from the California Graduate School of Theology." First, it is not an earned degree, but an honorary one, and the "California Graduate School of Theology" is not accredited by any national or regional accrediting agency. It is also a degree entirely unrelated to Geology. He also claims to hold a degree in Bachelor of Arts from Burton College, which investigators have not even been able to verify exists, and also unrelated regardless, and a Master of Arts from Luther Rice in Conjunction with Pacific College of Graduate Studies, which is a seminary school from which a representative confirms that Baugh received a degree in Biblical Archeology from their Australian extension, also unrelated to Geology. He then later claimed to hold a Masters Degree in Archaeology from Pacific College and a Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Anthropology from College of Advanced Education. Both of these supposed claims have been shown to be false. The address of the College of Advanced Education that he cited was traced by investigators to a private residence located next to a baptist church whose reverend stated that CAE is a missions school with no scientific curriculum. His personal history goes on and on like this, with spurious claims of legitimate degrees. The man is a liar, and a con-artist. Gee, how surprising- lies from the creationist movement. "actually there is no one in the scientic community that is willing to come forward to disproved the theory how long it took granite to form." Nonsense. His claims have been roundly debunked. It's just that the scientific community doesn't pay much attention to frauds. Just because he continues to perpetrate his fraud does not mean the scientific community needs to address him every time. He's already proven his utter lack of legitimacy. "The most serious error that all evolutionary minded people make in accepting dates derived from Carbon-14 dating and from the half-lives of Uranium isotopes, including U-238, is the PRESUMPTION that the Theory of Uniformitarianism, the foundation on which both systems of dating rise and fall, is rock solid" Son, you need to get a real education. None of this is even accurate. Uniformitarianism is not the lynch pin in carbon dating. Uniformitarianism is an antiquated and no longer accepted geological theory regarding the geological timescale being uniform as opposed to catastrophism. You are misapplying it. Not only has it not been accepted in Geology for a long time now, but it is unrelated to carbon dating. You are confounding lack of punctuation in geologic history with the regular decay rate of radioactive atoms. For those who would like to learn how carbon dating actually works reference the following website: http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 189 (view)

Does god exist? Posted: 1/25/2006 3:16:01 PM
"Anyone with a long enough attention span would notice that if they read a novel of, say, 200 pages, in one day (quite intense reading it would have to be), they would for a while feel themselves somewhat “seeing” the world of the novel all around oneself, because the thought association and worldview of the author(s) of the book would have taken over one’s usual frame of mind" Good post- a little disjointed, but interesting and thought provoking. I regularly will read 200 pages in a day, sometimes more, sometimes less. Now and then I'll read as much as 400 pages in a day, and I can tell you from years of personal experience that you are right. It is an entirely different mind-expanding experience to immerse yourself like that in the intellectual space of the author as opposed to slowly digesting it over a long period of time, but I would extend your statement into non-fiction as well, perhaps even more so in that case. I would also extrapolate the concept beyond one book and into a subject. Sometimes a subject will catch my interest, and I'll check out five books on it from the library and consume them in short order. Not only are you immersed in the subject, allowing you to apply concepts to your environment in a whole new light and illuminating a nexus with other concepts previously encountered, but you are also provided with the tremendous benefit of having the concepts introduced through differing perspectives and perceptual biases. Sometimes you think you understand something, but when you read it presented in a new light for the third time a light bulb goes on, and you begin to understand it on a whole new level.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 185 (view)

Does god exist? Posted: 1/25/2006 11:33:49 AM
"ARGUMENT FROM BEER" Now that makes sense! In fact I think I'll run to the liquor store and get pious. "The question is not "Do you believe in God and if so why"?" And my point was that the reason you gave for believing is hopelessly spurious. If how many people believe something is a litmus test for validity, then you should also believe in Santa Claus, because millions of children worldwide do. There's an awful lot of people who believe that America is the great Satan- do their numbers lend legitimacy to that? A lot of people used to believe that fruit flies spontaneously generated from rotting fruit. Should we accept this as a valid theory, because a lot of people believed it? If that was how science worked, you wouldn't have a computer to engage in this discussion, or an electrical outlet to plug it into. An awful lot of people in the world are racist- are they right, because there are so many of them? I'm not saying that your beliefs are false, only that the reason you gave for them is a terrible one. Don't get an "I'm dumb" complex. I'm not accusing you of that. Just listen to what I'm saying. Predicating beliefs on how many other people believe it can and often does lead to horrible situations. The bandwagon fallacy is not only egregiously illogical; it can even be socially dangerous.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 182 (view)

Does god exist? Posted: 1/25/2006 10:59:25 AM
"I especially love the harp strings." Zoom- right over my head. I don't get the reference here. "So, I stand on yes, God exists because million/billions recognize Him as existing" I think you missed my point. If you are predicating your belief on what a bunch of other people believe, then I have to say you should rethink your position. If you lived in Nazi Germany, would it be a sound argument that Jews should be rounded up into concentration camps, because all your neighbors believed so? That is a terrible reason to believe something. A far more sound reason for your beliefs would simply be that you feel it to be true. It's not a logical reason either, but at least it sets the issue in a relevant framework. It is nothing but a matter of personal inclination for both theists and atheists.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 130 (view)

Anti-black Racism in Religion! Posted: 1/25/2006 10:52:04 AM
The "not hanging out in churches" comment was in regard to Christianity only, not caucasians in general. Perhaps, like I said, living in California, my perception is skewed. It may be that racism in the South and Midwest is far more prevalent than I realize. I tend to doubt that, but I must admit, I've never been there. I can only base that on people from the south and Midwest who I've met here. It may be that they are unrepresentative of the attitude in the South and Midwest in general. I hope not. I really don't need my opinion of the human race to drop yet another notch- LOL. "so you must see that because you consider yourself "caucasion"" Well, I don't really. Like we both agree, these distinctions are more social constructs than genetic. As far as recent heritage, I'm Italian, French Canadian, Lithuanian, Dutch, Algonquin Indian and who knows what else. Go back far enough, and I certainly have African in me as well. "from my experience, most white people are not racist", is much like a man saying "from my experience, most men are not cheaters" in response to a woman saying most are." I don't think that's a valid analogy, because, in reality, PEOPLE are cheaters, almost irrespective of gender. I really don't think, in a state of nature, that humans tended to mate faithfully for life. Both men AND women have a biological imperative to be sexually polygenous. It may very well be that the causation of that tendency is slightly different between genders- men for diffusion of genetic material, women for an imperative to "upgrade," but, regardless of such speculation, the statistics show that men AND women cheat in significant numbers. It seems we are mostly in agreement Marathon, just a slight disagreement on whether or not the poster was being racist himself in his statement. I just have an extreme dislike for sweeping generalizations about groups of people; I'm sure you can appreciate that given the subject matter at hand.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 176 (view)

Does god exist? Posted: 1/25/2006 8:44:29 AM
"Yes, millions/billions of people on this planet contemplate/worship God, therefore, He must exist." argumentum ad numerum- also known as the bandwagon fallacy. Millions of people once believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Were they right? Just because a lot of people believe something is not a logical argument for it's veracity. I could provide a long list of things a lot of people believe that are demonstrably false. There is no way to prove either way if God exists or not. That renders it a matter of personal philosophical belief. If you go about trying to use logic or empirical observation to prove his existence you will fail. Just accept that it's something you "feel" and leave it at that. "Science has proved that man did not come from a monkey, chimp, ape, or any other creature for that matter" This is a terribly ignorant statement. First of all the theory of Evolution does not state that man evolved from an ape or a monkey. We share a common ancestor- big difference. Secondly the theory is an exceedingly strong one and accepted by the vast majority of people in the scientific community. And don't bother pasting a list of a handful of "scientists" who claim to support creationism, because they are not representative of the average scientist, and most of those names are people speaking outside of their discipline and in some cases are even blatantly misquoted. "the big bang theory they threw that one out the window" Where do you get this drivel? The big bang theory has not been discarded. "How long did it take granite to form?" Amusing. This old saw again. This nonsense is based on the rather unscientific claims of one person who happens to be a physicist and not a geologist, and is NOT taken seriously by the mainstream scientific community for very good reason. He has never been able to demonstrate that the concentric halos in mica are the sole result of polonium decay's alpha particles, and all the actual evidence contradicts his theory. His samples are not from the early stages of the earth, and it does not cohere with the vast amount of independent evidence for the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years. "I have questions that are even harder than this one" Harder for you perhaps, but sophomoric to someone studied in scientific methodology and critical thinking. You are like a child loudly proclaiming his expertise in English literature, because he just read a stack of Richie Rich comic books.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 84 (view)

What reason do you have NOT to believe in God??? Posted: 1/25/2006 8:13:04 AM
"But even then, you can only know so much. And so when I'm 90.....people can still continue to say that to me, or to other people." You are absolutely right. See you're getting better at this already. That's my whole point. You should never be finished learning. It is an ongoing process, and there is more knowledge in the world then any one person could absorb in a lifetime. The wonderful thing is that many things relate, so the more you learn, the better you get at recognizing the connections, and you develop a sense for what is more useful to study, and what is just noise. You could memorize the cast of every sitcom that was ever produced, which might fare you well in a game show, but won't do much for increasing your analytical skills, or you could study Chemistry and Physics instead. So, study, and never stop studying.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 3295 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 1/25/2006 8:07:11 AM
"That would mean the process is not testable and therefore not "scientific"." Wrong. According to your flawed logic, meteorology would also not be scientific. We can't track every molecule involved in weather patterns, but we can observe and measure the global effects. Chaos theory is a branch of physics that does just this- studies the global patterns of non-linear dynamical systems. So why don't you tell Bright's friend Dr. Chaos (I love that) that he is not a scientist, or, you could take another avenue, and actually learn what the hell you are talking about instead of spewing out ignorant nonsense. "Naturalistic philosophy, for the gods' sakes! What does he mean by this, you ask" Feral- this is funny. I just responded on a thread about this very issue. Look for it; it mentions naturalism in the title. This is a common misconception- the confusion of ontological naturalism with methodological materialism. I went into some depth, so I don't want to repeat myself here.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 74 (view)

What reason do you have NOT to believe in God??? Posted: 1/24/2006 10:09:53 PM
"...Is that not enough to believe??" This post is a circular argument. The existence of the universe is only evidence of the existence of the universe. It no more proves the existence of God than it does any other conceivable theory of universal origin. Trust me when I tell you that you can't prove the existence or non-existence of God using logic and empirical observation. It is a matter of personal philosophy. Read post 75 above; it is well stated. "I have to work hard at reading the Bible....YES.....but of course I'm gonna reject what some people say.........just as you reject to those people who offered you steroids because you know it's not good for you." I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Are you comparing knowledge to steroids? I encourage you to study the bible, sure, but not to the exclusion of all other literature. Don't ignore knowledge because you think it threatens your faith. If your faith is strong, it shouldn't matter. You may just find that it doesn't threaten your faith at all, and you were operating under a misconception. If you believe in God, then I can't see how you would be doing him anything but a disservice to ignore the knowledge he chooses to reveal. Do you think he doesn't reveal himself anywhere but in the bible? I have no desire to convince you that God doesn't exist; only to convince you to increase your knowledge.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 10 (view)

some thoughts on naturalism Posted: 1/24/2006 9:07:57 PM
teajay- I have read many texts by various scientists in various disciplines, Dawkins included, and I'm telling you that they very well understand the demarcation between scientific methodology and their philosophical leanings. Your initial post implied exactly what you just implied again in this post- that scientists claim their philosophical positions as scientific fact- they don't. My elaboration on the distinction between the two was very relevant in this light. This implication is false, and I'm trying to tell you why. "Furthermore, you tend speak as though your personal views, which it turns out that I have no problem with, are monolithic throughout science when that is simply not the case." I'm not sure which personal views you are refering to. My philosophical views I didn't even mention. Although fundamentally agnostic, I do tend towards ontological naturalism rather than idealist philosophies myself, but the point is that it's irrelevant to science. You also need to understand that science is a METHOD. It is a very rigorous method that scientists employ, so trust me, they understand the distinction. True that you will likely find a much higher percentage amongst the population of scientists who hold naturalist views than a general cross section of the population, but there are also Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan, Pantheist, Muslim etc etc. scientists as well. And they almost all understand the distinction between their personal philosophical views and scientific methodology. You also have to understand that science as a method exists independently of individual scientists, just like our constitution exists independently of individual politicians. It's due to this intersubjective nature that science is so effective. Personal biases get weeded out, so even if a few errant scientists are claiming scientific veracity for their personal philosophy, it has little bearing on the progress of science. And for the record I've read three of Dawkin's books and I've never witnessed him do this. It is due to the implication in your post that equated science with ontological naturalism that I made my VERY relevant point.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 66 (view)

What reason do you have NOT to believe in God??? Posted: 1/24/2006 8:35:28 PM
"This is not Elbert Einstein you are dealing with it is Forest Gump. Yes you are right about everything you say but does it really matter." I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone is hopeless. I doubt he's actually retarded, and I would be doing him a disservice to assume he is. And Late makes a good point that the existence of god is neither logically deducible or empirically emergent, so his non-existence is no more true in logical terms. Either position is unprovable. If we can get through to him that he would benefit, even in his own faith, by learning a little logic and critical reasoning skills, then that's enough for me. Even if he only changes his tone to one of inquisitiveness that would be a positive thing for him. There's nothing wrong at all with being ignorant. We're all ignorant of something. There is something very wrong with being uninterested in learning. There are many people here who would be happy to help him improve his reasoning skills so long as he actually listens to what they say. So, yes, it does matter. Look at it this way- I bodybuild, so I'll use it as an analogy. I wasn't born muscular; it took work and vigilance. The mind is no different. The more you read, reason, create etc., the better you get at it. Nobody is born with a muscular, toned mind; they may have certain lucky predispositions, such as perfect pitch or photographic memory, but everyone is capable of logical and abstract reasoning. It is a matter of practice. I just don't buy this notion that intelligence is innate. He may just walk away with something from being excoriated. Some times a little cold water is the best way to alert someone.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 62 (view)

What reason do you have NOT to believe in God??? Posted: 1/24/2006 8:00:33 PM
"Fellow posters...this is not about logic it is about resolve." Oh, but he was the one to enter the arena of logic. When you loudly proclaim a list of facts supposed to prove your faith, then you are opening the logic door. Had he simply said what you just said from the beginning, I would not have even posted.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 60 (view)

What reason do you have NOT to believe in God??? Posted: 1/24/2006 7:50:54 PM
"because I see how much people hold onto hate" First of all, I don't hate you. I don't even know you. I do detest certain types of behaviour though, and one of them is blustering and braying adamantly over something that is fallacious. If you don't know, and you are just learning, then why the initial attitude? From Ludwig Wittgenstein it's acceptable. The man had a mind like a steel trap, and earned the right to be adamant. From Forest Gump- not so much. Of course that's a bad analogy, because what was so endearing about Forest Gump was his humility, something wholly lacking from post 17. "It's actually the people on here who are not respecting what I believe" I am not concerned with what you believe. I never go on the forum unprovoked and attack beliefs that are not my own. I will correct logical fallacies and misstatments of fact though. I never even attacked your beliefs in my response. I attacked your overweening attitude in combination with your blatant fallacies. Did I ever say that your personal spiritual beliefs were stupid? I did not. My tone was merely a response to the overweening attitude. You will find my corrections far more amiable if you curb that.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 57 (view)

What reason do you have NOT to believe in God??? Posted: 1/24/2006 7:32:48 PM
"Pascals Axiom states" It's called Pascal's wager, and it is a faulty bit of reasoning from an otherwise brilliant mind. His wager was essentially this- if you believe in God, and you are wrong, you lose nothing. If you don't believe in God, but are wrong, you have a lot to loose. The problem with this is that there are many many different religions, some of which are mutually exclusive of others, so the only way to win the wager is to believe in all religions, but that is not logically possible, since, by the tenets of some religions, you are sinning by believing in others. In fact, it is flawed in many ways. It didn't take long for other philosophers to debunk that one. "You want to see that you should come over to Forming Your Own Religion Thread." I took a quick look, and since I am really not studied on whether or not Christianity was influenced by Buddhism, I can't comment. I can say that it's obvious who you are talking about though.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 52 (view)

What reason do you have NOT to believe in God??? Posted: 1/24/2006 7:23:48 PM
"OK Guy, your on your own" Not at all. There are others in this forum who understand where I'm coming from. "since he backtracked many times and stated he was 'just in the learning stage'." Okay, fair enough. I did not notice him retract that post. Perhaps I missed it. It's being so adamant about an issue and spewing out fallacy after fallacy that irks me. that's what I mean by willful ignorance- the adamant attitude. If he later said that he was wrong and retracted the post, then that's great. I respect that. Hopefully he learned his lesson and will not stamp his feet so loudly over issues on which he is uninformed- like science.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 48 (view)

What reason do you have NOT to believe in God??? Posted: 1/24/2006 7:11:53 PM
First of all, Stalin was "following his heart." I just don't buy that as a justification for willful ignorance. Secondly, his format was clearly throwing down a gauntlet- FACT: blah blah blah FACT: blah blah blah FACT: blah blah blah If you throw down a gauntlet, you had better have the chops. It's like Pee Wee Herman jumping into the ring with Mike Tyson and saying- FACT: "I can whoop your ass." "I think you would go easier on someone in your own platform..." I have trounced people in my own platform. I've gone after the non-religious for similar reasons, so you are wrong. Unless of course by "my platform" you mean people who employ sound logic. In that case I wouldn't have anything to attack, because their logic would be sound.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 45 (view)

What reason do you have NOT to believe in God??? Posted: 1/24/2006 6:57:52 PM
"Just like the recess schoolyard...tsk/" How do you figure? Sorry, but if he is going to post with such bluster and bravado, then he had better get his logic and facts straight, or he should expect to be trounced. Go back and read the post (msg 17) that everyone is making fun of, and tell me that his tone wasn't combative. It is more the tone in combination with the fact that it was riddled with errors that everyone is reacting to, not just the fact that it was riddled with errors.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 41 (view)

What reason do you have NOT to believe in God??? Posted: 1/24/2006 6:47:32 PM
"Hey...Go gentle with him. He has already said he doesn't know alot and he's still learning." It's not that he was in error that was so funny; it was how absolutely sure he was of himself, and every single FACT! was either an urban legend that most 12 year olds know to be false, or a blatant fallacy of logic. It was the combative tone of his self-assured insistence that was so funny. FACT- The moon is made of green cheese! How do you explain that? FACT- There are over 4000 styles of dance in the world. Apollo was the god of dance. Can science explain that? FACT- Atoms only exists on earth; this must be true, because we've never observed their existence anywhere else. FACT- People are naturally resistant to Freudian psychoanalysis, which psychoanalysis predicts, so it must be true. Okay, now I have a real fact- FACT- this guy needs to go back to school.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 36 (view)

What reason do you have NOT to believe in God??? Posted: 1/24/2006 4:27:29 PM
"Fact: A man has one less rib bone than a woman" I can't stop laughing over this one. Like Late pointed out, every statement in that post is an egregious logical fallacy, but this just about knocked me on the floor with laughter. Yes, and eating an apple seed will make an apple tree grow in your stomach. Thank you for that little bit of amusement. I seriously can't stop laughing. You know what the worst form of pride is? Willful ignorance.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 124 (view)

Anti-black Racism in Religion! Posted: 1/24/2006 4:03:29 PM
Marathon- Even saying "most" is a broad sweeping statement. In this day and age, I honestly don't think most white people are racists. I think racists are the exception. That's not to say that a lot of people don't do or say racist things without even realizing it, some do. Those people need to be gently reminded of their biases, but it is intent that really makes the difference here. Progress toward a colorblind society is not furthered by lashing out with statements like "most" white people are racist. Maybe because I live in SoCal I'm not seeing a true cross section of the American populace, but, from my experience, most white people are not racist. Of course, like I said, it's a silly distinction anyway. Frankly, I'm sort of a light brown with tints of olive and red. I'm a mutt, with diverse lineages. Truth is really that everyone is. People who consider themselves "racially pure" are misguided. As for racism in Christianity, I can't speak to that, as I don't hang out in churches and such, so I don't really know.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 119 (view)

Anti-black Racism in Religion! Posted: 1/24/2006 2:44:23 PM
That's what I call reactionary racism. It's no different than a white person judging all black people, because he was mugged by a black guy. Because SOME white people are ignorant racists does not justify sweeping statements like: "This is because the people have a desperate need to see black people as leaches on world society and not huge contributors. Not in giving spiritual knowledge or otherwise." I don't have a desperate need to see any race in that light. I don't even have a slight need to, and, from what I've seen of these posts, neither does most anyone else in this thread. I'm sure this guy has encountered racism, but his painting everyone else with a broad brush as a result is no different than what the people who may have mistreated him did. Instead of reacting with equal racism, we should concentrate on uniting those who are not racists against those who are, regardless of race. That's where the true divide lies.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 117 (view)

Anti-black Racism in Religion! Posted: 1/24/2006 2:01:17 PM
What a silly argument this is. That anyone cares one way or the other is the product of ignorant racism. Like Lizard said, what if he was an Asian? What if he was Nordic, Arabic, or any other arbitrary race? What possible bearing does that have on his philosophy? Here's a fact that should shed some light on the emptiness of this entire issue- any two human's DNA, from any part of the world, is less dissimilar than the DNA between two chimpanzees. We are more alike as a species than chimpanzees are as a species. Our differences are so trivial, that they can be ignored for all practical purposes. Add to that the fact that races are somewhat arbitrary distinctions anyway, because we all share ancestors, and you need not go back much more than 200 generations to find an ancestor that everyone alive today shares. If you round out the numbers for the sake of parsimony and we assume that everyone at the age of twenty gives birth to a new generation that about takes us back to the times of ancient Egypt. Humans have not really been isolated from one another for long enough periods of time to develop profound differences in structure or morphology. We are all remarkably similar except for trivial differences in skin tone or slightly different bone structure. Our brains are indistinguishable, so who cares if Jesus was frickin' purple? Odds are, from anthropological and archaeological evidence, he was dark skinned. Who cares?

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 3282 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 1/24/2006 11:35:09 AM
"Ironically, I've seen this exact argument made in at least two separate books from the creationist camp, trying to argue that kids are fed Darwinist information without any critical capacity to question it. Interesting, no?" Great, then we are in agreement as to the necessity for a critical thinking course. I don't know what you are refering to though, because everything I've read from the creationist camp says nothing of the sort. I'm surprised they would say that, because their arguments crumble when critically analysed. Are you sure they are calling for an emphasis on critical thinking, or an emphasis on their particular fallacies dressed up as critical arguments? Because when the underlying process of critical thinking is applied, their arguments are as thin as tissue paper. It sounds to me like bluster; if it really came down to a mandatory critical thinking class they would change their position and start complaining again that they are not getting a fair shake. Since soulmansion's arguments are so typically representative of the utter bankruptcy of logic, critical thinking and science in their arguments, I'll take this opportunity to shred his post as an example. "Regarding entropy, if anyone can enlighten me as to the net increase in entropic state that occurred when the first living material was formed, I'd like to hear of it." Here's a good example of someone parroting the creationist nonsense without any understanding of what he's saying. Clearly, you don't even know what entropy is. How much education in physics do you have, son? Because you are completely misusing and misunderstanding entropy. Rake already explained this, and you glossed over his response and just repeated yourself. I'll try, again, to educate you. First of all, I think you meant to say net "decrease" in entropy, not increase. The second law of thermodynamics is about heat transfer in a closed system. Heat won't spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one. Entropy and disorder are not necessarily equivalent. This is a common misconception. Statistically speaking, it's relation to disorder is merely the fact that there are infinitely more states of disorder than there are of order, so it's just a matter of probability. If you split a fish tank in two, color one half with yellow dye and the other with blue dye and remove the border, you will end up with a tank filled with green water. It is possible, but so improbable, for the opposite to happen that we are not likely to see the green water separate into yellow and blue dye for trillions and trillions of years. It's possible, just highly improbable. Now if we were to add energy to the system, we could theoretically sort the molecules back to their original state. The earth is constantly supplied with an influx of energy from the sun, and from it's own interior; IT IS AN OPEN SYSTEM. That being said, entropy can even decrease in a closed system if it is asymmetrical. If a pocket of higher entropy forms in one part of a closed system, entropy can decrease in another. In fact entropy can drive complexity. How does a tornado form in the atmosphere? A tornado is an example of an ordered system emerging from chaotic factors. Why? Because the sun pumps energy into the atmosphere and drives meteorological action. Atmospheric conditions are not evenly distributed, so pockets of higher and lower entropy form, and the atmosphere is constantly being supplied with new energy. "Regarding star formation, many Evolutionists lay claim to this phenomenon as evidence lending credence to their belief system, but the Opposite is true" Star formation has NOTHING to do with Evolution. This is really indicative of your alarming lack of knowledge on the subject. "(Opposite of truth is a common theme in our day)." Yes, for evidence of this one need only click on the websites you provided. They are filled with misinformation regarding science. "In fact, the organizing force acting upon the elements that constititute stars is the same organizing force that is responsible for all of creation: The Creator, God..." Okay. I've got no problem with that. If you want to believe that God set it all in motion and tends to his creation that's fine. It does not contradict Evolution or Cosmology to believe that. "Regarding comments recently posted in this thread re: Biblical interpretation, Wonkavision is right (in fact he has mentioned something that almost all of the seminaries of our day have lost sight of): the Bible was written in parable. Many verses speak to this; I'll only include a couple here (more available upon request)." Biblical quotes, thought-provoking as they may or may not be, are irrelevant to the discussion. "However, this is Not to say that many verses of the Bible are not Also literally true. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. In other words, a Bible verse can speak of a factual historical event while also imparting spiritual lessons about the Gospel." Okay. What does that have to do with the veracity of a scientific theory? "* Are we to assume that every beast on the Ark was fully grown? The Bible makes no such claim. In fact, given the Bible's specs for the Ark (450' long by 75' wide by 45' tall) we can be fairly certain that a great many of the beasts on the Ark were younglings." This is funny. Tending to millions of babies would be a MORE daunting task. also, I don't think you appreciate how many species there are on the earth. I don't care if they are all fetuses- they aren't going to fit on a boat that is 450' long by 75' wide by 45' tall in a condition in which they can remain alive. How much space do you think five million marbles would take up? How about if each marble had it's own pen? You need to improve your knowledge in mathematics as well as science. "* Would it have been possible for God to have pacified the carnivores so as to allow for safe passage of potential prey animals? Of course Almighty God could manage this." Where in the flood story does it say that god did this? If you want to start infusing your own explanations outside of the bible then you might as well say that God shrank all the animals to the size of an atom. Unfortunately there is not so much as a hint that any such thing took place according to the myth as it is written. This is what is referred to as an ad hoc conjecture. An ad hoc conjecture is when you make up conditions after the fact to explain away logical or evidentiary flaws. If I said that I can flap my arms and fly, and you asked me to prove it, and I responded that being asked to prove it takes away my power to do so, that would be equivalent to what you are doing. Ad hoc conjectures don't wash. "* Was each and every type of animal that we see today represented on the Ark? Probably not, although the Bible does not clearly state this. In other words, rather than dogs and wolves, there may only have been one kind of canine from which these have been derived, with similar scenarios being the case for various other animals belonging to the same kind." This is really amusing. There may have been one kind of canine from which all canines were derived??? Derived how? You mean like from.... Evolution? Funny how you are using what you are arguing against to explain away your flaws. Sorry, if you admit that a jackal or a dingo, or a coyote can be derived from an earlier form of canine, then you are foraying into Evolution. "* However, there definitely were more animals on that Ark than have ever been gathered together in one man-made place before or since, with many species there represented that have since become extinct." So you admit to extinction too? Interesting. "(Many have a terrible problem accepting this possibility - even knowing how enormous this Ark was. By way of illustration, the Earth is said to be "overpopulated" with humanity. 6 Billion of us and growing. Yet every human on Earth could fit in the state of Texas - each with more living space than the average American has today. If we wanted to cram, we could fit everyone in Rhode Island. Surely we could fit a few million animals - many, if not all of them younglings - into an Ark the size of a luxury liner.)" Sorry, but if you crammed the entire earth's population into Texas, the results would be devastating. Each person would have roughly .027 acres a piece. That means you couldn't walk much more than about 100 feet in one direction before bumping into the next guy. Disease would proliferate and waste management would be next to impossible. You are thinking of it as a simple issue of geometry, but that is myopic. You are not taking into account all of the peripheral considerations. Also if you are going to explain away all of the logistical problems with "divine intervention" then why have an ark at all? Why didn't God just whisk them all into another dimension during the flood and then whisk them back after the fact? Why bother with being confined to reality at all? The whole building of an ark becomes painfully superfluous at that point. "Evolutionism is spiritual. It has never been proven and cannot be proven (because it is false). As an example, no one has been able to explain how the first elements managed to form the first life." Evolution is not remotely spiritual. It involves nothing but natural phenomenon and does not invoke the metaphysical to explain anything. You are confused. It really irritates me when people who have little to no familiarity with science try to spout off their opinion of it. You don't know what you are talking about, son. Go back to school. The first elements? What are you talking about? The first elements to form in the universe were hydrogen and helium. Nobody is claiming that life originated from hydrogen and helium. You're understanding of science, again, is primitive. YOU CAN'T SUBSTANTIVELY CRITIQUE WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. "Then we must take it on faith that it did occur as they tell us, and that perhaps someday we will scientifically understand its origin. In other words, faith." Science has nothing to do with faith. Science only rings in on what it can empirically verify. First of all, you are continually bringing up Abiogenesis, which is only tangentially related to Evolution. Evolution, for the billionth time, is about the natural mechanisms that foster the variety of life. Life's origins are the purview of Abiogenesis, and much progress is being made in that field. We do have knowledge of the conditions of the early earth. Geology provides us with much useful information in this area, and there is ample evidence that organic compounds can form, under the right conditions, from inorganic compounds. If you think that Abiogenesis claims that single celled organisms just spontaneously formed then you clearly understand nothing about this field of study. "Surely, Evolutionists make many physical observations that they claim to support their belief system, but so do Creationists." Oh really? I've yet to see it. All I've seen from the creationist camp are the type of misunderstandings of scientific methodology that you have displayed in your posts. "However, almost all Creationists will admit that there is an element of faith to their belief system, while Evolutionism is falsely portrayed as being faith-neutral and valid completely independent of faith. Until they can explain its very origin, it is as faith-based as any other belief system of origins." Wrong again. Science takes nothing on faith. Science empirically verifies it's claims. If it can't; it discards them or leaves them open for future inquiry. How arrogant of you to form a negative opinion of something you don't even understand. I have nothing but the most aggressive antipathy for this behaviour. "Evolutionism is a (pseudo) scientific wing of an ancient spiritual movement: rebellion against God:" Oh look, my favorite straw man fallacy again. Evolution is not a rebellion against religion. It is an independent scientific theory. Many biologists believe in some form of God. You can't square the two, because you don't understand science. Get an education and then come back. Until then, please don't pollute the forum with uninformed nonsense. Either man has a soul or we don't. It is either part of our species or it isn't. Whether explicitly or implicitly, a belief system that purports to discern the Origins of the Species will also speak to the Nature of the Species, physically and spiritually - or devoid of spirit, as many now believe we are. What is a soul? That's a pretty vague construct. Do dogs have souls? Do ants? Please define what you think a soul is. If you believe it to be a metaphysical construct that exists independently of our physical bodies, then how does Evolution contradict that? Couldn't God just imbue you with a soul at some point in your early development? What difference does it make where humans as a species originated? If your ancestors were formed from clay or evolved, you are still faced with the question of how your individual body ended up with a soul. Evolution has no bearing on this one way or the other. "I've been written a book that explores the Biblical account of Creation (no big deal, self-published, don't expect big sales). Maybe one of you could hip me up: would it be alright to post info about it on this forum - or would that be considering spamming or the likes?" This is really amusing. You wrote a book? Is it filled with similar abominations of grammar as this? -"I've been written a book that explores..." "I've been written a book?" Go ahead and post it if you are a glutton for punishment, because I will tear it to shreds.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 8 (view)

some thoughts on naturalism Posted: 1/23/2006 8:35:49 PM
"I would feel very much like a self appointed philosophical authority figure, dispensing reality to lesser minds at my discression alone." First of all there is a marked difference between accusing someone of having a "lesser mind" and the acknowledgement that I have more knowledge in a particular subject. I am well educated in philosophy and science. By clarifying some points in which you were mistaken, I was not implying that you have a "lesser mind" any more than a professor grading a paper is implying that. That being said, I don't think you understood a word I said, so I'll try to make this brief and simple. Your original post clearly implied that science holds a particular position, which it does not. That is the importance of the distinction between ontological naturalism and methodological materialism. The difference is subtle, but crucial. Science is only concerned with the natural world and what it can learn about it empirically and rationally. It takes no position EITHER WAY on speculative philosophical positions. It doesn't say they don't exist, it doesn't say they do. It simply does not concern itself with unanswerable questions that are not quantifiable and verifiable. Ontological naturalism, on the other hand, is a PHILOSOPHICAL position, which avers that nothing but the natural world exists. Some scientists hold this philosophical position; others hold spiritual beliefs. They simply demarcate what is scientific and what isn't. The two are unrelated. One, science, is a method. The other is a philosophical belief, like religion, atheism, idealism, etc. Do you understand the difference? I'm sorry if I get a little cranky, but science is so universally misunderstood in our culture that it gets a little tiresome hearing the same old misconceptions over and over. Is ontological naturalism objectively true? Of course not, because it can't be proved or disproved whether or not anything beyond the material exists, so personally, I'm fairly agnostic on the issue. It's no more true or untrue that the contrary position. I won't go into a long academic discussion on truth values and logic as that will get far more complex and jargon-filled than my first post. I think I made that point simply enough; did I?

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 3266 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 1/23/2006 7:58:49 PM
"But I find it odd that Eienstien would wave a surrender flag and admit there's a God of some sort but he's not willing to make that one last step and embrace a personal God." That's a valid question. The difference here is that you are not demeaning something without requisite knowledge of what it is you're demeaning. This is a respectable post. I'm just not sure what you mean by not accepting a "personal God." Isn't everyone's definition of God personal, even within the same denomination? What God represents for you is not necessarily what he represents for another. You seem to be implying that Einstein was being wishy washy. I think he simply had his own definition of God, which was essentially that the universe and its governing principles IS God. He always referred to God as "The Ancient One," which he seemed to use more as a semantic convenience than a reference to any conventional view of a supreme being with a long white beard, robe and sandals. From what I've read of Einstein's work, his view of God seemed to be more of a reverence for the wonders of the universe. The whole point is that it is an unanswerable question, so, by its very nature, ones view of God is personal. It's not something you can quantify or define. Does it really matter how someone wants to express their awe at the majesty of existence? Chrisitan, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan, Muslim, Atheist, Pantheist, Deist, Sub-Genius- the one thing most of us share in common is our awe at the majesty of existence. It's all of us against those damn Nihilists- just kidding.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 3259 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 1/23/2006 4:47:02 PM
"as evidenced by putting the Darwin fish symbols with little feet on their cars to counter the ichthus that Christians have been putting on their cars" Oh, that's just a joke. I used to have one of those years ago when it was still novel. That's more of a reaction to this inexplicable need that Christians seem to have to proclaim their beliefs wherever they go. Some people just get tired of hearing it, so they counter with the Darwin fish. I've seen both fishes on the same car before, which is obviously meant to assert that the two are not contradictory. I've seen "gefilte" fish that Jewish people put on their car. Who cares? Did you find it offensive when Homer Simpson, under duress, called out, "I know I don't pray to you much, but please save me superman!" That was a harmless little dig on religion, but it was pretty funny, you have to admit. It's the small percentage of Christians who don't have a sense of humour who give the rest a bad name. We should all laugh at ourselves from time to time. Someone told an anti-evolution joke on this forum a while back, and it made me laugh out loud. It may have been inaccurate in its details, but in that context who cares? It's the joke that matters. Let me ask you a provocative question- does God have a sense of humour?

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 3257 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 1/23/2006 2:55:26 PM
"Lisa, in a rebellion phase, steals the teacher's edition of every text in school. The teachers all panic and admit that their only source of intellectual superiority is lost!" That's a great episode too. Doesn't Bart take the wrap for her? I think that's the one where he takes the wrap, because she's the only one in the family with the chance of making something of herself, and "when you do, I'll be there to mooch off you," or something like that. "In flight training there is a saying that a pilot's license is "a license to learn." In the same way, a formal education should emphasize that it is just establishing a foundation for people to continue learning on their own." Good analogy. It's true with anything really. No matter the topic, or in relation to knowledge in general, one should never be finished learning. That is the mark of cognitive sloth. cave ab homine unius libri- beware the man of one book. Anonymous Latin maxim "my church environment did a better job convincing me that the study of evolution was a Dept. of Education anti-Christian agenda than school did teaching me scientific methodology." That's the problem. People aren't being taught what science actually is (heck, they're barely being taught to read these days), so the willful agenda of a very few is feeding off of that ignorance to cause dissension where there shouldn't be any. Even much of the mainstream populace is being hoodwinked by this shell game. I am confident if the vast majority of those people actually understood the issues, scientifically and philosophically, they would not feel that animosity for the theory. The animosity is being created by the misinformation that this small group of fundamental literalists are perpetrating. I have some degree of confidence in the potential intelligence of people. It's similar to a con game; if you are being fed misinformation, and you have never been trained in critical thinking, you might just buy swampland for development. It's not a lack of intelligence, but a lack of necessary education and practice in analytical reasoning. But, as I said before, much of the onus lies on the individual. There's no excuse really in this country to be academically uninformed. Libraries are free.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 3254 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 1/23/2006 1:34:40 PM
""The Simpsons" has parodied this sad truth." I love The Simpsons. Are you refering to the episode where Marge says she will pay for Lisa's college education by giving piano lessons, and Lisa responds, "but you don't play piano." Then marge says "I only need to stay one lesson ahead." If I'm not mistaken that's the spelling bee episode with George Plimpton- "and a hot plate!" "I believe that a library card is more valuable to educating oneself than a diploma." Speaking from personal experience I agree, but I must also bear in mind that people learn differently. I prefer learning on my own; I find it more productive, but some people respond better to the imposed structure of academia, just like some people respond very well to the structure of the military and others don't. Either way it often boils down to an individuals level of curiosity as to what they get out of an education, whether formal or autodidactic. "Sure, you can think critically, but if you choose to disagree with the prof, then you also choose to take on the entire burden of proof and risk a harsher grade." I agree this happens, and it is the mark of a substandard teacher, but the converse is also true. Many students are simply afraid to be wrong, so they won't ask questions. What is important is not being right or wrong, but learning the process of analytical reasoning. Often being wrong is the best learning experience of all. I have no complaint with people who have the attitude of wanting to learn, even if they ask questions that seem juvenile to someone familiar with the subject. Sometimes that's how our understanding grows, by asking stupid questions. Being corrected in ones flawed reasoning can really turn the light bulb on at times. Also, sometimes a question is not so stupid, and can actually inspire the professor to re-think an issue. It may force him to better formalize his position, modify it, or drop it altogether. If the professor is truly passionate about his subject, he should welcome such inquiry. I have no problem with people who are not schooled in a topic. What I detest is people stomping their feet and railing against something they don't understand. That's what I can't get across to some of these people. They think I'm being snide because of their lack of knowledge on the subject. That's not the reason at all. I'm being snide at the arrogance of denouncing something they don't understand. That being said, I don't accept lack of educational opportunity as an excuse. Like you said, the local library provides more information than one person could process in a lifetime. Those who live in western culture and lack an education, do not lack the opportunity. They lack the wherewithal. "When you have mentioned in past posts using logic that should have been covered in high school, my thought has been "you must have gone to a really good high school."" I did attend a pretty good high school, but like yours they never specifically addressed critical thinking. Truthfully most of my knowledge was gained through a personal obsession with learning, and not through formal education.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 3251 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 1/23/2006 11:54:47 AM
"it doesn't just boil down to literal and metaphorical interpretation. There are many degrees of both types, and a combination of the two." I realize that. That's why I said: "...as metaphorical in many places" The bible is a blend of historical accounts (many which were passed down first by word of mouth and so the "game of telephone" has to be considered as a factor in their accuracy), parables, genealogical lineages, legends, moral codes, philosophical homilies and poetry. Whether or not one feels these were divinely inspired is irrelevant to the fact that it is a menagerie of various literature compiled and translated under the direction of specific interpretations. Contrary interpretations have been excised or left out entirely in the Bible's history. Assuming it is divinely inspired, I wonder why people are content to stop there. Is it not also possible that God has spoken through many others throughout history? It brings to mind Dharma's posts (who I haven't seen here in a while.) She was fond of posting song lyrics, her point being that God speaks through people all the time. This is an objective perspective, as I am not a spiritual believer, but it seems to me an affront to God to lock onto one narrow interpretation of his divine word, and ignore everything else he chooses to reveal. As for the origin of homo sapiens, even if one doesn't accept Evolution, you still have to accept the relationship that homo sapiens shares with the rest of life. We are made of the same stuff. This is a fact. Genetics has conclusively proved that fact. We even share long strands of DNA in common, genes that serve related functions in homo sapiens as they do in other species. The evidence that not all life was created simultaneously is equally compelling, so evolution logically follows. That's not even to invoke the wealth of independent evidence that Evolution is a powerfully explanatory theory. The statistics on that website are indicative to me of the sorry state of education in this culture. Children are not taught critical thinking. No specific emphasis is placed on it, but the children are expected to pick it up through osmosis by studying the disciplines to which it relates (which is just about everything.) They need a mandatory class, early in either junior high or high school, specifically for critical thinking and logic. They make the mistake of teaching children "what to think," and not "how to think."

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 3249 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 1/23/2006 10:36:26 AM
Flyguy- you are absolutely correct in your assessment. It is clear that it is the contradiction of a literal interpretation that motivates their agenda to try to discredit science in the eyes of the average person. Since the average person has little familiarity with scientific methodology, they are easily fooled by someone "sounding" scientific. Honestly, though, how many educated Christians honestly take the bible literally word for word? How many Christians honestly believe that Noah crammed millions of species on an ark including the means to feed and house them, and keep them all separate enough that they didn't eat each other? What about the carnivores? He would have had to bring plenty of extra sheep and/or pigs to feed them. How about all the bacterial life? Viruses? Clearly, the account of the flood is a metaphorical parable. Clearly the earth is not 6000 years old; to claim so is tantamount to asserting that the earth is flat or that the solar system is geocentric. I would venture a guess that most Christians are educated enough to understand the bible as metaphorical in many places, and that these creationist nuts represent a small minority. I would have to agree with the statement above by Deagleninja that if you believe in God, to disregard science is to do him a tremendous disservice. Why ignore the majesty and wonder of his creation as revealed by science? It's no different than rejecting the immensity of the universe, because you can't wrap your head around how vast it actually is, so you adhere to the notion that the sky is truly a canopy filled with tiny pinholes through which the light of God shines. Honestly, what is more respectful of his majesty and wonder? Appreciating the absolute vastness of his creation and the forces that form stars and galaxies, or the notion of a canopy filled with pinholes? The latter would be representative of a poverty of imagination, and a disrespect for the complex wonder of creation.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 3247 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 1/23/2006 10:02:01 AM
Okay Trewq- you got me! Well, technically that is an equation contained within a poem, but poetic technique is not employed in solving the equation. That's mathematics. I suppose I could write a poem about Relativity, but alliteration, assonance, rhyme and consonance have nothing to do with space and time being relative to the observers frame of reference and the speed of light being a universal constant. Still, nice poem.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 3245 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 1/23/2006 9:41:33 AM
"I can give Wonka some credit for not attempting the impossible." I have not addressed these issues, because they are IRRELEVANT to Evolution. You bring up philosophical issues that are wholly unrelated to the scientific theory. What is beyond finite? Do you honestly think this is a scientific question? That is philosophy, and, I am well studied in that discipline as well, so if you want to go off on unrelated philosophical tangents, fine, but I'll tell you right off the bat that the reason it's under the purview of philosophy and not science is because it remains speculative. There is no way to test such speculations as the "existence of the infinite," which is not what Feral said anyway. Now, let's address your other response to Feral- "Please entertain me with your speculation of the causation....now, no cheating you must be vivid" "No cheating"- you mean like picking up on words in the thread that others have used, and using them in the wrong context? What do you mean by "your speculation of the causation?" How is that remotely related to what Feral said: "I would contend that, it is possible that, at this point in the growth of the human species, we lack some tools to explicitly define and measure all aspects of the presumed origins of the universe, but I do have an experientially-based belief that it is possible for humanity to plumb the depths of universal history." How does your meaningless question even follow from this? All Feral is saying is that he personally believes that methods will be developed in the future that will bring the question of universal origins under the purview of science. I'm assuming by experientially-based, he means to say that, predicated upon how science has subsumed many issues that were formerly untestable, he thinks it follows that this will be as well. Now tell me what "your speculation of the causation" means, or has to do with the price of tea in China. Did you just like the way it rhymed? "Get some sleep, Feral." Seriously, I think it's time for YOU to go to bed, and let the adults talk. "In the end, many of us creationists, admittedly, are riding on the coat-tails of those who are in possession of greater intellect than we are. But the same can be said to those who don't believe and are evolutionists." Here's the crux of the issue, which you have just admitted- you don't know what you are talking about. I have studied the relevant issues, and I am not simply parroting others arguments. Many have already explained to you and others that the people you are parroting are promulgating misinformation, and, being ignorant of science, you lap it up like a dog lapping up vomit. Educate yourself on the actual theory, and then, perhaps you will understand the hostility you receive. Nobody likes dishonesty and prideful ignorance. And again, you are equating lack of spiritual belief with Evolution, after it has been clearly explained to you that they are unrelated. Many scientists are atheists or agnostics and many hold various spiritual beliefs. It is a separate issue.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 3223 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 1/22/2006 6:10:47 PM
Okay, first the trivial points of contention- "Yes I know what a straw man argument is. I consider negative attacks on posters or groups of posters that do not provide useful information about the discussion of Evolution vs Creationism to be arguments against "strawmen"." That consideration would be wrong. You are refering to an ad hominem fallacy, not a straw man fallacy. A straw man fallacy, which I've already explained, is when you attack a fabricated argument that the opponent never made. There is a lot of intentional misinformation promulgated in our culture regarding this particular theory. That is why I get so wound up when people don't really understand the theory, but they pick up on these straw man arguments and devote copious amounts of energy arguing against issues that are actually irrelevant to the theory. The classic example is that Evolution is atheistic. There is nothing remotely atheistic about Evolution. The issue of theism is irrelevant, yet this thread is filled with people posting long-winded arguments against the "atheism" of Evolution. That's like arguing against psychology for being communist. It's a straw man, and there are many straw man arguments floating around our culture regarding Evolution. I am simply asking you to familiarize yourself with the actual theory, and not parrot these cultural fallacies. Now, back to the ad hominem fallacy. When someone attacks the debater and not his debate, that is an ad hominem fallacy, but not if the attack is both true and relevant to the argument. Let me explain the difference with two examples- Ben- I think that we should privatize the educational system. Bill- What do you know? You worked for the Nixon administration. That is an ad hominem fallacy. It may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant to the point. Ben- Evolution is bunk. How can you think we came from monkeys? Bill- Actually your knowledge of the theory is very poor. We did not evolve from monkeys, but share a common ancestor. You need to familiarize yourself with the actual theory before you can make substantive commentary on it. This is not an ad hominem fallacy. It is both true and relevant to the argument. See the difference? You can thank me later for taking the time to give you a little logic lesson. "rather then simply saying Evolution by natural selection is too complicated for me learn?" I did not say that it was too complicated for you to learn. It may be, but I don't know you. In fact, if I thought that was the case I wouldn't bother responding to you at all. I get short with you, because I assume that you can process these concepts but don't bother to. Continually you have asked me to explain things that I already have, and rejoined with arguments that were already roundly debunked by me or others. What I said, which is very different, is that Evolution is a complex theory and one can't critique it with only a sound byte knowledge of it. Do you not understand the difference between those two? Again, you need to ask specific questions, because I can't possibly educate you in the vast disciplines from logic to geology that you need to be familiar with to understand the theory. I have gaps in my knowledge that need to be filled. I just don't think you appreciate how truly involved this all is. Biologists study their specialty for a lifetime and still turn to geologists for their specialised information when needed. If you had an appreciable familiarity of science, you would understand just how much you don't know. I have enough familiarity to appreciate how much I don't know, and it's plenty. Regardless, I shall try to address your questions as best I can. "Perhaps you can explain how those process are very well explained by the process of Evolution or direct me to where you have explained it before on this post if you have. If it is too complicated to be explained on this thread then how can you justify bringing something up that you will not explain. How does that facilitate discussion?" First, I can justify it the same way that I may bring up the equivalence of mass and energy in relation to a point. If you then rejoined by asking me to explain to you why mass and energy are equivalent, I would need to get into a rather involved explanation only tangentially related to the point. Also, this can lead to infinite regress, because in that explanation, concepts will be broached that you may in turn ask me to explain, so I hope you can appreciate the daunting task you are asking me to perform. You want me to condense volumes of study into a pat answer. As for irreducible complexity- briefly, it's a misconception, because these organs are not irreducibly complex. The bombardier beetle, for instance, mixes two chemicals together and shoots them at its opponent. These chemicals are explosive in combination, but only with the action of a third catalyst. Creationists like to use this as an example of irreducible complexity, saying how could it evolve this mechanism without blowing itself up? They also say that the chemicals, by themselves, serve no function, but that is incorrect. All three chemicals exist in other closely related species and individually serve other functions. It would be useful to understand the concept of preadaptations or spandrals, which I have explained before. If you don't understand how this relates, or don't remember what I said, then ask, and I'll explain it more. The eye is a very long discussion, but, again, it is not irreducibly complex. Different parts of the eye do exist in simpler forms and some serve other functions. Various chemicals and sometimes even whole organs are coopted for other purposes by the pressures of selection in combination with genetic variance. There is a wealth of evidence that this cooption happens, but you need to address texts for specifics. Also, to help you to understand how genetic variance occurs would truly be daunting. Genetics is complex, but I assure you that the study has provided overwhelming empirical evidence for Evolution. Again, if you have SPECIFIC questions regarding genetics then ask. "Please define what you mean by substantive debate and spurious logic. What exactly about my posts do you see as spurious logic and what would they require to meet your criteua for "substantive debate"?" Honestly, I've been very clear on this. Spurious logic- straw man fallacies, argumentum ad vericundiam, argumentum ad numerum, petitio principii etc etc. There are many fallacies of logic, but briefly, logic in terms of debate refers to internal consistency within an argument. From my earlier example "what would you know; you worked for the Nixon administration." is not internally consistent. It has nothing to do with the subject. Circular arguments are not internally consistent to the dialectic. They are internally consistent as a sentence, but offer nothing to debate. To say, "animals are ferocious because ferocity is a trait that animals possess" offers nothing to a debate on the ferocity of animals. Substantive debate- look up sophistry and avoid it. Restating an earlier argument in different words but identical content is not an argument; it is an irritant. If someone logically debunks a point, simply restating the point instead of addressing the rejoinder or relenting is not substantive argument; it is sophistry. Vehemently arguing against something that you don't even understand is sophistry. If someone had never been to Kenya and had never read anything about Kenya or even watched a documentary on the country, yet vociferously expressed their extreme dislike of Kenya, what would you say? "Can you give a logical explanation of why it is not a scientific method of testing I.D. rather then simply saying Evolution by natural selection is too complicated for me learn?" I can't tell you what's wrong with what you have not provided. What "it" are you refering to? Tell me what you think is a scientific test to verify I.D. You have not yet done so. What test have you provided? "Again can you back up that opinion with something besides the theory of Evolution by natural selection is too complicated for me to explain to you on this thread?" Yes, read my post on the fallacies of essentialism and dichotomies. "Then I state that the biblical account of Jesus is the right one. Somebody begins asking questions about what appear to them to be logical inconsistenties in my posts that are asserting the biblical account of Jesus to be correct. I then respond by stating that the study of Jesus is a very complex subject and I can not begin to explain how wrong they are in a short post or even on the thread. If they really want to learn about it they should go to the library. Further by responding negatively to my ascertions without knowing as much about the subject as I do, they are being unscientific and unlogical. If someone was saying he thought the biblical account was untenable and he had never read the bible or any other texts about the bible, then you would be absolutely right in telling him to read up on it first. Thank you for making that very important point for me again. So you understand me then? As to being unscientific; that's different. I am saying that you don't understand science because you don't. It's clear from your posts. Again, that's fine. I don't understand football myself. I just don't express strong opinions for this team over that team, because I haven't the slightest clue. On the other hand if you would like to learn instead of just arguing against something that you don't even know against what you're arguing, then that's great. I'd respect that. Again, please ask SPECIFIC questions. As for being illogical, again, it is not due to your lack of familiarity with science that you have been accused of being illogical. If you think that then you have not understood a word I've said. If I say you are being illogical, it's because you are being illogical. That would be in reference to a particular statement. I don't fault someone for not being educated in a subject; I do fault someone for attacking something that they are not educated about. "In fact they remind me of a kid in school who is not interested in learning anything." Son, I am interested in learning just about everything, and I guarantee you if we were tested in general academic knowledge I would absolutely trounce you, so that is hardly a critique you can levy against me. And not that it matters, but, for the record, I've read the bible too.

wonkavision

Joined: 9/9/2003

Msg: 3217 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 1/22/2006 2:47:03 PM
"according to science everything has an opposite" Well, not exactly. Science does not claim that everything has an opposite, and, in fact, many "opposites" are more a matter of abstract classification than actual fundamental opposites. Actually, this brings up two very important points, (and this is simply a tangent and not a direct response to your conjecture; I'll come back around to that) which I shall call the fallacy of Essentialism and the fallacy of dichotomies. Essentialism is the Platonic notion that everything we experience represents some ideal form of that thing that exists "out there." This is the fallacy that many fall into when they don't understand how speciation can occur. Our brains like to form borders. By nature, we separate things into autonomous objects, and we even tend to do this when considering abstract distinctions. Taxonomic classification is one of these instances, and it is important to remember that this classification is largely arbitrary. Kingdoms, classes, phyla only exist because we decided to classify organisms that were morphologically dissimilar. Nature has no such classifications. To understand this consider the idea of the species ring. This is a phenomenon which has been observed in various biospecies (meaning species that are still extant as opposed to paleospecies.) Let's say a species of bird is quite similar to a bird in a neighboring habitat, but different enough that obviously some genetic isolation has occurred, but the two are genetically similar enough that they can still interbreed. In another habitat over, there is yet another somewhat isolated deme of birds and they are similar enough to their neighbors to interbreed. If we continue to track demes of birds, when we get significantly far enough away, and take a member of a distant deme, it is dissimilar enough that it can not interbreed with the first species, but can with it's neighbor. Where does speciation occur? This is an observed phenomenon in many different species from birds to salamanders. Now if we take that geographical gradual change and apply it historically, bearing in mind that over 99% of all species are extinct, it is easy to see how we are left with the illusion of very distinct organisms. But again, in reality, they are only distinct because of the missing intermediaries. If every intermediary species that ever lived were still extant, we would see a dense soup of life; the similarities would be obvious, and taxonomic classification would be impossible. Now on to the fallacy of dichotomy, which is similar. Our brains love to split things in two. It is likely the first cognitive function to ever evolve and is a fundamental feature of our brains. A very primitive form of life would greatly benefit from the ability to separate night from day, up from down, cold from hot etc. As brains became more specialized and complex, they began to process the richer complexity of life, but every brain is not constructed anew. If you dissect the human brain, it falls into three main structures (more classification) the R-complex, which is nearly identical to a reptilian brain, the limbic system, which is nearly identical to all mammalian brains, and the neocortex, which is only hyper-developed in primates and especially in humans. Our more complex reasoning is built on top of earlier forms, not distinct from them. Think of the technological evolution of the computer as an analogy. All the wonderfully diverse and complicated tasks your computer can do are built over the original DOS core. Some programmers have said we should throw DOS out all together and start over, because we are simply building around flaws. Unfortunately we don't have the same avenue open to us with our brains. Dichotomous reasoning is fundamental to our brains, so it is important to always be vigilant of our tendency to fall into it. That's not to say it's not useful. Essentially formal bivalent logic is a very useful tool, but it's not necessarily representative of the rich, multivariate complexity of reality, which takes higher brain functions to appreciate. So, back to your conjecture- science does not say that everything has an opposite. For example anti-matter and matter are both forms of matter, so I wouldn't call them fundamental opposites. Matter and energy are equivalent and matter must be in one form or the other, but neither would I call them opposites, except as an abstract classification. What it sounds like you are attempting to put words to is the question of the spontaneous generation of matter. Where did it come from? You are saying the opposite of matter, but, again, that doesn't really mean anything in a formal sense. I could say that before matter there was "bleeb," but that doesn't really tell me anything. It is merely semantic. I'm not saying your line of inquiry is meaningless, just that you have not yet really come to any meaningful conclusion, only a semantic one. I don't want to discourage you thinking in this direction; keep working on it. "Sorry, just count the syllables." I was wondering who was going to catch that. I thought about it after I posted. "It is this on which I believe the opposition to evolution (perhaps even science) is founded, since it (as a "creation story") seems to counter and even invalidate many religiously held beliefs. I was attempting to point out that the frames of reference through which various people behold not just the evidence, but the very debate itself, tend to cloud the issues and provide even more unwarranted friction. Does this make any more sense?" The important point here is the epistemic distinction. Nobody is saying that religious beliefs are false, only that they don't meet the standard of scientific methodology. You can't build a bridge with a knowledge of cooking; and you can't solve an equation with poetry. Religious beliefs are of a philosophical nature. Any theologian will agree that there is no way to empirically verify the existence of God. It is a matter of personal belief. Because science does not concern itself with the unknowable issues of personal belief, does not mean that it is hostile to them. As I've said before, many scientists hold various spiritual beliefs; they simply understand the demarcation. I know you understand this, so I'm not lecturing you, just putting it out there again. "is pretty well summed up in "Origin of Species." Have you read it?" Yikes! Don't tell him to read the "Origin of Species." He should read a modern account of the theory first. As I've said before, in the context of history, the "Origin of Species" was an unprecedented stroke of genius, and, although his basic point is sound, he does make many errors. It's a century and a half old, so it has been vastly re-worked and improved upon. If you tell him to start with that, he'll get the wrong impression of how strong the theory actually is in its modern incarnation. He should start with Dawkins and Gould probably. They disagree on certain issues, so it's good to see it from both perspectives.

Show ALL Forums