Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 124 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2017 2:34 AM
367 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,418 Year: 19,024/21,208 Month: 1,783/3,111 Week: 4/574 Day: 4/38 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 1 of 136 (665195)
05-07-2012 5:12 PM


The thread proposal appears in Message 6. --Admin

I choose: "Evolution versus Creationism, et all is a 'Red Herring' argument due to misunderstanding on both sides"

I cannot thank you enough for your informed and cogent help.
PaulGL

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed topic title from "I choose: "Evolution versus 'Creationism, et. al.' is a 'Red Herring' argument due to" to "Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument".

Edited by Admin, : Direct readers to the message containing the thread proposal.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-08-2012 8:07 AM PaulGL has responded
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-25-2012 12:43 AM PaulGL has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 2 of 136 (665196)
05-08-2012 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulGL
05-07-2012 5:12 PM


Hi PaulGL,

That choice is fine. Could you expand that title into a thread proposal? A few short paragraphs providing background and outlining your position should be sufficient.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulGL, posted 05-07-2012 5:12 PM PaulGL has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 2:02 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 6 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 2:11 PM Admin has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3809
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 3 of 136 (665197)
05-25-2012 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulGL
05-07-2012 5:12 PM


Bump (and a reference to another PNT)
Still interested in pursuing this? If so, see message 2.

For whatever it's worth, your proposed topic seems to be similar to the (also stalled) proposed topic Evolution/Creationism - Two sides of the same coin.

Adminnemooseus

ps: I note that in your profile, you have not chosen the "Email Notification" option. If you select that, you will receive e-mail notices when you get replies to any of your messages.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulGL, posted 05-07-2012 5:12 PM PaulGL has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 1:51 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 4 of 136 (665198)
05-27-2012 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Adminnemooseus
05-25-2012 12:43 AM


Re: Bump (and a reference to another PNT)
Sorry, admin. For some reason my email notifications got cut off, and I didn't realize any of this was happening. Will change/check settings to rectify.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-25-2012 12:43 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 5 of 136 (665199)
05-27-2012 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
05-08-2012 8:07 AM


Percy: I'll have to get back to you on that, but within 10 days- since my email notifications are now back on (I hope). I had to ditch my 7-year old PC and get another. Rather than transfer my bacup, the PC store put my old hard drive in the new PC also. But I just found that it won't access those files. Will be knocking on their door Tuesday.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-08-2012 8:07 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 6 of 136 (665200)
05-27-2012 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
05-08-2012 8:07 AM


Evolution was, in its conception, an applied extension to biology of the school of thought known as uniformitarianism. Evolution itself is a logical explanation of the information that it correlates, and the evidence of the appropriate scientific fields has consistently verified the mechanisms necessary for substantiating the validity of evolution. Evolution, while it is not a proven process in the strictest sense, is completely valid in its viability and is the only logical process (i.e., one amenable to scientific analysis) so tenable.

The human error in the promotion and promulgation of evolution was, and still is, of two aspects: Firstly, as we shall see later on in this chapter, the school of thought that gave rise to the theory of evolution- Uniformitarianism﷓ is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism was founded on insufficient and incomplete data, and the motives for its adoption were more anti﷓Genesis than they were pro﷓scientific.

The second mistake, resulting from the same anti﷓spiritual motivation as the first, was in the use of evolution as one pillar of a mechanistic explanation capable of circumventing the problem of first cause, i.e., the origination of everything. Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.

To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-08-2012 8:07 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 05-29-2012 8:58 AM PaulGL has responded
 Message 11 by Tangle, posted 06-10-2012 8:18 AM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 12 by jar, posted 06-10-2012 9:31 AM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Larni, posted 06-10-2012 11:17 AM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2012 11:37 AM PaulGL has responded
 Message 15 by Genomicus, posted 06-10-2012 11:43 AM PaulGL has responded
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 06-10-2012 2:09 PM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 06-10-2012 3:56 PM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Trixie, posted 06-10-2012 4:49 PM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2012 5:07 PM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Taq, posted 06-11-2012 12:17 PM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Hawkins, posted 06-13-2012 1:02 PM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 69 by herebedragons, posted 07-08-2012 9:12 AM PaulGL has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 7 of 136 (665201)
05-29-2012 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulGL
05-27-2012 2:11 PM


Hi Paul,

Your thread proposal appears to be a cut-n-paste from A Message for the Human Race. This is from the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

  2. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.

At this site debaters are asked to marshall their arguments using their own words and use links and citations only as support. Excerpts should be brief and should include attribution.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 2:11 PM PaulGL has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulGL, posted 06-09-2012 1:25 PM Admin has responded

    
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 8 of 136 (665202)
06-09-2012 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Admin
05-29-2012 8:58 AM


reply to "cut n paste"
I wrote A Message for the Human Race. The 'cut and pastes' are my commentary on specific footnoted material validating the concepts elucidated. Do forum rules require that I re-phrase my own commentary, probably to a less cogent version?
Also, am going to check my 'murphy's law' email notification setting, since I didn't receive notification of any forum/thread/replies.
PaulGL aka achristian1985
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 05-29-2012 8:58 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Admin, posted 06-10-2012 7:43 AM PaulGL has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 9 of 136 (665203)
06-10-2012 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulGL
06-09-2012 1:25 PM


Re: reply to "cut n paste"
PaulGL writes:

I wrote A Message for the Human Race.

I have no way of knowing that. I guess there are drawbacks to writing anonymously.

I'll promote the thread, but keep in mind that there are three reasons we ask people to compose original replies rather than cut-n-paste. One reason is the obviously plagiaristic one. Another is that very early on in EvC Forum's existence we found that those who cut-n-pasted their arguments usually didn't understand them. And the last, and the one that applies here, is that we find that pre-composed replies rarely if ever fit the context of a dynamic on-going discussion.

Also, even when you're quoting yourself, people have the right to know when the words were composed as a direct response to their message and when they were composed for another context.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulGL, posted 06-09-2012 1:25 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 10 of 136 (665205)
06-10-2012 7:43 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4878
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(6)
Message 11 of 136 (665207)
06-10-2012 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulGL
05-27-2012 2:11 PM


PaulGL writes:

Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.

You're making the usual mistake of equating 'evolutionist' with 'atheist'. (And also, by saying evolutionist and not simply biologist, you're imagining that there are some particular groups of people working in the biological sciences that think that evolution is false - there aren't.)

That aside, science has not discarded the Genesis account - science never ever had anything to say about it. What a particular religious group thinks about its creation myths is of absolutely no interest to science. Rather, a few groups of believers are disconcerted by science's findings and fear that the natural explanations they provide challenges their beliefs.

Science has simply found out how the natural world works and that's a challenge for those who need to cling to impossible beliefs come what may. There are no merits to the creation story, except as a childish myth to be put to one side once you come of age.

If there's a red herring anywhere here, it's the supposition that science is remotely interested in anything religions believe. Science didn't discover evolution as a prop for atheism, it discovered it because it's a fact of the world we live in.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 2:11 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 12 of 136 (665209)
06-10-2012 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulGL
05-27-2012 2:11 PM


So many strange ideas.
Do you know what 'uniformitarianism' even means? Are you claiming that things happened differently in the past, that landslides went up instead of down, that mountains sank into the earth instead of rising up, that weathering made rocks grow instead of splitting into smaller pieces?

Are you claiming that rain didn't fall, that streams ran uphill, that storms were calm and volcanoes spewed cold magma, that water contracted when it froze and the circumference of a circle really is three times the diameter?

As a Christian I can tell you that the Genesis accounts of creation are rejected because they are simply wrong as well as the internal inconsistencies in the accounts.

The Genesis accounts were not dumped in some frenzied effort to discredit the Bible but rather simply because the overwhelming body of evidence in all fields of investigation showed that the Genesis accounts were incorrect.

Now I'll admit that it certainly is possible that Satan, not as an enemy but as the servant of GOD, is influencing those Christians that oppose the fact of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 2:11 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3943
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 13 of 136 (665220)
06-10-2012 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulGL
05-27-2012 2:11 PM


The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

While this is trivially true you then have the difficultly of having to decide which god is responsible for all the evidence that unfailingly points towards a naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life on Earth (that is assuming you are not using ToE as a place holder for atheism).

If no god is required and none evident, why conclude one?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 2:11 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11540
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 14 of 136 (665222)
06-10-2012 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulGL
05-27-2012 2:11 PM


Have we met?

The human error in the promotion and promulgation of evolution was, and still is, of two aspects: Firstly, as we shall see later on in this chapter, the school of thought that gave rise to the theory of evolution- Uniformitarianism? is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism was founded on insufficient and incomplete data, and the motives for its adoption were more anti?Genesis than they were pro?scientific.

I don't see that as a problem... regardless of it: evolution is the best explanation of the data we have.

The second mistake, resulting from the same anti?spiritual motivation as the first, was in the use of evolution as one pillar of a mechanistic explanation capable of circumventing the problem of first cause, i.e., the origination of everything. Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.

Again a non-issue. Evolution still explains the data. The ramifications are no problem for the explanation.

What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.

How would you have us debate whether Satan was responsible for the EvC debate or not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 2:11 PM PaulGL has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulGL, posted 06-11-2012 4:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 15 of 136 (665224)
06-10-2012 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulGL
05-27-2012 2:11 PM


PaulGL:

Evolution has nothing to do with gods or deities. Whether the supernatural exists or not would not alter the validity of the theory of common descent.

Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account...

Yes, when creationists argue that the Genesis account should be taken literally.

In short, evolutionary theory isn't attacking theism. It makes no claims regarding the existence (or lack thereof) of deities.

This makes comments like the one made by William Provine (professor of history and biology, Cornell University) especially egregious:

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

Nothing could be further from the truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 2:11 PM PaulGL has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by PaulGL, posted 07-06-2012 12:45 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017