Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2017 11:40 AM
287 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,340 Year: 28,946/21,208 Month: 1,012/1,847 Week: 387/475 Day: 50/102 Hour: 7/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   Church Is Not Enough?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 61 of 110 (674311)
09-27-2012 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 7:00 PM


No, I don't think I'm making a mistake. Let me clarify. Suppose we have two persons who both claim to be scottish. How do we know if theyre telling the truth? It seems that they have to satisfy certain criteria, right? Well, then we extend it to religion. If a group fits the criteria for a religion, it is a true religion, as opposed to a pseudo-religion. Get me here?

But you are equivocating. By "true religion", I obviously mean "a religion that is true", not "something that is truly a religion". You're just playing with words.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:00 PM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by LimpSpider, posted 09-28-2012 3:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 62 of 110 (674312)
09-27-2012 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 6:52 PM


Re: Assumptions
Can you read?

Nothing here supports your argument.

Are you lying for Jesus?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 6:52 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 09-28-2012 11:02 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 63 of 110 (674313)
09-27-2012 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 7:12 PM


Why dont we take a dual approach. Religious, and Scientific? Sure, one can emphasize just the scientific parts, which it mostly is.

Well, sure. If there is any religious aspect to evolution, then I disagree with it. The scientific facts, on the other hand, are scientific facts, and the scientific theory is a scientific theory. If any loony wants to derive metaphysical or ethical propositions from this, then I quite agree that this should not be taught in schools or anywhere else.

Heres my question. If the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, and the evidence against creation is, too, then how can students be confused?

Because creationist rhetoric involves teaching stuff that creationists have made up. To teach what creationists say is to teach things that are flatly false. On the one hand, one would be teaching the evidence for evolution, which is indeed overwhelming, and on the other hand one would be teaching the made-up stuff which supports creationism, which would be equally "overwhelming" if only it was true. Unless one informs students which is true and which is false (which would hardly suit creationists) then they would indeed end up deeply confused.

Specifically, what kind of reasoning?

Well, y'know, reasoning. You just asserted stuff. That's not reasoning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:12 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1796 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 64 of 110 (674314)
09-27-2012 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by PaulK
09-27-2012 2:06 PM


quote:
So you're saying that you already knew the answer ? If so why ask the question ? A rhetorical question generally has a point. So what's yours ?

Yes, I did. People on this forum seem to be a herd of sheep, no offence, but thats what I see. To make people think from a different perspective.

quote:
I don't see Eugenie Scott saying anything about these "religious portions" of evolution - although you have yet to identify any that are actually being taught in schools. Nor do I remember any critical thinking exercises attached to the teaching of Newton's Laws of Motion.

Heres one fundamental difference between evolution and Newton LoM, evolution happened in the past. It is not happening NOW. This can be best stated by Dawkins, Evolution has been observed. Its just that it has not been observed while its happening. http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html

Newton can be experimented with. Yes, I know there are experiments on evolution, but none of them have proved that we evolved from microbes, which is the mantra I hear from the media every day, and from my textbook.

No hand-waving from you? Ill let the audience decide, although given their bias...

quote:
THe answer is no and that is essentially the logic I used in the portion you dismissed as "hand-waving and muddying of the situation"). Except that I did it better.... So skip the condescension.

Good, at least you recognize some logic. Heres what I was responding to. You statements that Humanism is Evolution. Not what I said, I said the opposite. And no, you did not do it better.

Your reply to my point on Occam has nothing of substance that I did not reply to on other posts, to other people.

Re: Dragging the issue. If evolution is atheism, and b and large all atheists follow the humanist manifesto.....I dont have to repeat myself, Paul.

Its a book about how belief in God is delusions, and one of the major props is evolution. (No, Im not going to cite whats in the book to prove that Ive read or not, thats worth nothing, If I had, you win nothing, if I had not, you win nothing either, because I would be able, hypothetically, to get a copy a pretend that I have read it,), and I do not have to repeat what was written in the preface.

quote:
Please can you support your assertion that evolution requires life to originate from unliving chemicals. Are you asserting that only unliving chemicals would be capable of forming life which could evolve? THere are plenty more problems with your invocation of the "law" of biogenesis (which actually supports evolution) but unless you can support the first claim, it really doesn't matter.

I feel no need to reply to you on the second point.

As to your assertion that biogenesis supports evolution, Pasteur did not agree. Nor do I. Oh, wait a minute. I think I know why we disagree like this. What is the definition of evolution? (Until that is answered, I cant reply further on this matter)

quote:
But that is Provine's opinion, not evolution itself. And the opinion of one or even two guys (one of whom is regularly accused of being "ignorant" of philosophy and theology) really doesn't carry much weight.

And I suppose you are talking about what Ruse said about them. He is a philosopher of science, not actually a scientist in the sense that Dawkins and Provine WERE. So the question is, Who understands science better.

Sure, you are under no obligation to agree with anything. But there is no logical basis for you to feel obligated to do so, or not to do so, for that matter.

Evolution is the only way for an atheist to be intellectually fulfilled. Dawkins said it first.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 2:06 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2012 1:06 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 68 by Tangle, posted 09-28-2012 2:57 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1796 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 65 of 110 (674315)
09-27-2012 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ringo
09-27-2012 3:21 PM


Pigs can fly. Just not naturally.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 3:21 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 09-28-2012 1:09 AM LimpSpider has not yet responded
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 09-28-2012 12:39 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13369
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 66 of 110 (674350)
09-28-2012 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 7:41 PM


quote:

Yes, I did. People on this forum seem to be a herd of sheep, no offence, but thats what I see. To make people think from a different perspective.

I think that you need a position that is at least rationally defensible for that to make sense. I don't think that people need to spend time considering arguments that are obviously stupid nonsense.

quote:

Heres one fundamental difference between evolution and Newton LoM, evolution happened in the past. It is not happening NOW. This can be best stated by Dawkins, Evolution has been observed. Its just that it has not been observed while its happening. http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html

That doesn't change the fact that Newton's laws are merely good approximations (or not good at all under some conditions) yet they are (or were) taught in schools as unquestionable fact.

Let us also note that Dawkins does insist that there is a very large amount of evidence that evolution has happened - evidence that you would need to refute before you can claim that confidence in evolution is unjustified.

quote:

Newton can be experimented with. Yes, I know there are experiments on evolution, but none of them have proved that we evolved from microbes, which is the mantra I hear from the media every day, and from my textbook.

Of course, science isn't limited to direct experimentation. There's lots of scientific research to support that conclusion. In fact we can start with the "law" of biogenesis and the fact that the fauna and flora on Earth have changed drastically over time. How do you explain these changes within the "law" of biogenesis other than invoking evolution ?

quote:

No hand-waving from you? Ill let the audience decide, although given their bias...

No offence intended but when a creationist says something like this he's usually whining that nobody will believe his obvious lies. If you can't understand something perhaps politely asking for clarification would be a better approach than an offhand and slanderous dismissal.

quote:

Good, at least you recognize some logic. Heres what I was responding to. You statements that Humanism is Evolution. Not what I said, I said the opposite. And no, you did not do it better.

Firstly we were talking about Provine's statement.

Secondly I explicitly stated that your equation of Humanism with evolution was implicit - and in fact it was required for your argument to even be relevant.

Thirdly you did not do a good job of expressing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The phrasing of your propositions was poor - "All cars are vehicles" would have been better.for instance. Formal logic requires precision in the use of language. My phrasing was not only better, it was directly relevant.

And as for "recognising logic" the fact that your argument relied on the very same fallacy rather suggests that your recognition of logic is not so good.

quote:

Your reply to my point on Occam has nothing of substance that I did not reply to on other posts, to other people.

Having reviewed this thread, I don't see any relevant responses. Please provide links to these alleged replied.

quote:

Re: Dragging the issue. If evolution is atheism, and b and large all atheists follow the humanist manifesto.....I dont have to repeat myself, Paul.

Its a book about how belief in God is delusions, and one of the major props is evolution. (No, Im not going to cite whats in the book to prove that Ive read or not, thats worth nothing, If I had, you win nothing, if I had not, you win nothing either, because I would be able, hypothetically, to get a copy a pretend that I have read it,), and I do not have to repeat what was written in the preface.


In other words the best you can do for emotional experiences connected with evolution is "a reviewer was enthusiastic about a book about atheism that used evolution as one of the major arguments against God". That really isn't very convincing, in that the example is both short of the fervour of religious emotion and any mention of evolution whatsoever.

And you are accusing other people of being biased ? How can any unbiased person not dismiss that argument as being nothing more than an obvious and desperate clutching at straws ?

quote:

I feel no need to reply to you on the second point.

As to your assertion that biogenesis supports evolution, Pasteur did not agree. Nor do I. Oh, wait a minute. I think I know why we disagree like this. What is the definition of evolution? (Until that is answered, I cant reply further on this matter)


I notice that you don't feel any need to provide any support for your initial assertion whatsoever.

In this case I argue that Pasteur's experiment supports common descent, and that common ancestry of different species requires evolution of some form. (Obviously spontaneous generation, of the form disproved by Pasteur, is inconsistent with common ancestry. The spontaneously generated microbes would have NO ancestors!)

quote:

And I suppose you are talking about what Ruse said about them. He is a philosopher of science, not actually a scientist in the sense that Dawkins and Provine WERE. So the question is, Who understands science better.

And yet when dealing with ethics or the existence of God we are moving out of the field addressed by the theory of evolution or even science in general and into that addressed by philosophy. Knowing the science is not sufficient. There are also experts in science who disagree with Dawkins and Provine (e.g. Kenneth Miller and Simon Conway-Morris).

quote:

Sure, you are under no obligation to agree with anything. But there is no logical basis for you to feel obligated to do so, or not to do so, for that matter.

So the rational response on your part would be to provide better arguments, rather than relying on "authorities"...

quote:

Evolution is the only way for an atheist to be intellectually fulfilled. Dawkins said it first.

I know that he said that, I know why he said that, and I know that it is really irrelevant to the claim that evolution is a religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:41 PM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by LimpSpider, posted 09-28-2012 3:20 AM PaulK has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 67 of 110 (674351)
09-28-2012 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 7:42 PM


Pigs can fly. Just not naturally.

Id est, ballistically. Trivial case. Does not apply.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:42 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5257
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


(2)
Message 68 of 110 (674353)
09-28-2012 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 7:41 PM


Limpspider writes:

Yes, I did. People on this forum seem to be a herd of sheep, no offence, but thats what I see. To make people think from a different perspective.

Sorry Chuck, you can't call me a sheep, then ask me not to take offence - life isn't quite like that is it?

But never mind, this sheep accusation is commonly put by those who would have us believe in what they believe. It's an odd thing, it's as though they - and now you - think that what they're saying is new and that we haven't thought of it all before. The thing about creationism is that NONE of it is new - it's had the bones picked over for a couple of thousand years and it has now been shown to be wrong. Just plain wrong, so we don't need to believe it any more or teach it in our science classes.

Us sheep get it, we really do - we've just noticed that there's no shepherd.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:41 PM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by LimpSpider, posted 09-28-2012 3:10 AM Tangle has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1796 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 69 of 110 (674354)
09-28-2012 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Tangle
09-28-2012 2:57 AM


I did say SEEM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Tangle, posted 09-28-2012 2:57 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Tangle, posted 09-28-2012 3:38 AM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1796 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 70 of 110 (674355)
09-28-2012 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dr Adequate
09-27-2012 7:20 PM


You should have made that clear. It was not.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 7:20 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2012 3:17 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 71 of 110 (674357)
09-28-2012 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by LimpSpider
09-28-2012 3:14 AM


Context, my dear LimpSpider. If I write: "Obviously there cannot be two different true religions", then there is in fact only one thing that I can mean by "true".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by LimpSpider, posted 09-28-2012 3:14 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by LimpSpider, posted 09-28-2012 3:21 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1796 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 72 of 110 (674358)
09-28-2012 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by PaulK
09-28-2012 1:06 AM


quote:
Of course, science isn't limited to direct experimentation. There's lots of scientific research to support that conclusion. In fact we can start with the "law" of biogenesis and the fact that the fauna and flora on Earth have changed drastically over time. How do you explain these changes within the "law" of biogenesis other than invoking evolution ?

Lets talk about just one of these. Change has to be defined quite clearly if you want to do so.

quote:
No offence intended but when a creationist says something like this he's usually whining that nobody will believe his obvious lies. If you can't understand something perhaps politely asking for clarification would be a better approach than an offhand and slanderous dismissal.

Actually, accusing me of lying is not exactly the best thing for you to do. Because, to my knowledge, Ive not purposely deceived anyone. Have I?

quote:
And as for "recognising logic" the fact that your argument relied on the very same fallacy rather suggests that your recognition of logic is not so good.

Can you state specifically what fallacy I was using? That would be helpful

quote:
Having reviewed this thread, I don't see any relevant responses. Please provide links to these alleged replied.

Message 59. And if you feel you have not been responded to, let me know. (Or maybe I did not feel there was anything to reply to.

quote:
And you are accusing other people of being biased ? How can any unbiased person not dismiss that argument as being nothing more than an obvious and desperate clutching at straws ?

Whether you want to recognize it or not, everyone has a bias. Me included.

quote:
In this case I argue that Pasteur's experiment supports common descent, and that common ancestry of different species requires evolution of some form. (Obviously spontaneous generation, of the form disproved by Pasteur, is inconsistent with common ancestry. The spontaneously generated microbes would have NO ancestors!)

Common descent, I have no objection to. I come from the same person as my....hundredth times removed cousin? But thats not the point. Once again, what is your definition of evolution, Ive met people who change the definition half-way through talking. And speaking of spontaneous generation, the first cells, would have no ancestors. As in, Abiogenesis. After all, it has to start somewhere.

quote:
And yet when dealing with ethics or the existence of God we are moving out of the field addressed by the theory of evolution or even science in general and into that addressed by philosophy. Knowing the science is not sufficient. There are also experts in science who disagree with Dawkins and Provine (e.g. Kenneth Miller and Simon Conway-Morris).

So should I start the name throwing of which scientist supports/opposes the views that have been expressed? I think not.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2012 1:06 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2012 3:57 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1796 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


(1)
Message 73 of 110 (674359)
09-28-2012 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Adequate
09-28-2012 3:17 AM


Must have missed that. Apologies, Dr.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2012 3:17 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5257
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 74 of 110 (674360)
09-28-2012 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by LimpSpider
09-28-2012 3:10 AM


LimpSpider writes:

I did say SEEM

So, if I said to someone "your SEEM to be a turd," do you think I might avoid a smack in the mouth?

If you're going to chuck insults, please don't insult me by being disingenuous about it as well.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by LimpSpider, posted 09-28-2012 3:10 AM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13369
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 75 of 110 (674361)
09-28-2012 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by LimpSpider
09-28-2012 3:20 AM


quote:

Lets talk about just one of these. Change has to be defined quite clearly if you want to do so.

Well let's start with the obvious. Go back, say, 80 million years and look at the animals and plants. You will find numerous species that are not alive today, and at most a few species strongly resembling modern species. That is change, and very significant change.

quote:

Actually, accusing me of lying is not exactly the best thing for you to do. Because, to my knowledge, Ive not purposely deceived anyone. Have I?


Of course, I did not accuse you of lying. However you have made a number of obviously false statements - which you should have known to be false. And it's a bit rich for you to be complaining about personal attacks when you've been happy to indulge in them yourself.

quote:

Can you state specifically what fallacy I was using? That would be helpful

So your ability to "recognise logic" doesn't extend to identifying the name of a fallacy that you yourself referred to? And since I explicitly said that it was the fallacy of affirming the consequent in the preceding paragraph you're asking for information that had already been given.

quote:

Message 59. And if you feel you have not been responded to, let me know. (Or maybe I did not feel there was anything to reply to.

That only contains a minor expansion of your original claim with nothing that could be considered even an attempt to address my points. Your assertion that you had done so then is an obvious falsehood and one you should have known to be false.

quote:

Whether you want to recognize it or not, everyone has a bias. Me included.

Which in no way changes the fact that it would require an extremely strong bias to ACCEPT many of your arguments, and thus complaining about the bias of others would seem to be more than a little hypocritical.

quote:

Common descent, I have no objection to. I come from the same person as my....hundredth times removed cousin? But thats not the point. Once again, what is your definition of evolution, Ive met people who change the definition half-way through talking. And speaking of spontaneous generation, the first cells, would have no ancestors. As in, Abiogenesis. After all, it has to start somewhere.

So you DON'T object to the idea that humans and microbes are descended from a common ancestor ? But, regardless, even if the first life has to come from somewhere it doesn't have to be naturalistic abiogenesis. And if the "law of biogenesis" is any sort of law we ought to be looking for the idea which has fewest violations. If one is needed then that would be one.

quote:

So should I start the name throwing of which scientist supports/opposes the views that have been expressed? I think not

But that's exactly what you did. You appealed to the opinions of Provine and Dawkins, without even presenting their arguments. If all you have is an appeal to authority, pointing to similarly qualified authorities who disagree is a valid counter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by LimpSpider, posted 09-28-2012 3:20 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by LimpSpider, posted 09-28-2012 4:42 AM PaulK has responded

    
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017