Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 5:50 PM
31 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, edge, GDR, Jon, JonF, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx (10 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,836 Year: 9,872/19,786 Month: 2,294/2,119 Week: 330/724 Day: 55/114 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The consequences of "Evolution is false"
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 43 of 210 (359189)
10-26-2006 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
10-25-2006 6:07 PM


Creationists have often made the claim that Evolution is not based upon facts or is not well-supported by the evidence.
I see several logical consequences to this situation, and I'd like our Creationists to address them.

1) Scientists are liars and conspire to defraud the public

2) Scientists are incompetent at doing science

You are promoting the idea that a proper conclusion to the statement:Evolution is false, and is not supported is that Scientists are liars, and imcompetent.

This is of course flawed on many different levels. I will attempt to outline all that I can see.

Firstly, it seems that you put words in the mouths of certain creationists, without citing any examples or evidence.

Generalizations fail to accurately gauge any level of validity pertaining to the opinion of a group of individuals, Creationists. You fail to cite the many creationists, who ascribe to a non-fundamental approach. You fail to cite creationists who reject science as worldly and meaningless. You fail to cite creationists who believe that science is a valuable tool, and scientists utilize valid methods of research, but find fault in evolutionary theory, as well as the evidence that is presented.

You also fail to describe on any level what "doing science" entails. This is a subjective term, as doing science can be reached at various standards of comparison.

One thing I have never seen a Creationist address adequately is the fact that science, including Biology, as an endeavor is cumulative and progressive. That is, all current scientific work is based upon past work.

Anecdotal evidence is usually never ample enough in dealing with discussions and debate. For I have seen many creationists argue that because of science's quality of being cumulative, that textbooks change every 5-10 years, sometimes dramatically, that science may be unreliable. This is usually contrasted with the long-standing ideals which have been put forth and remain, in the Bible. Ideas about existence, which seem to apply to every year, and every human. But what I "saw" or "heard" is usually not enough to produce a persuasive argument.

If the Theory of Evolution is completely false and not supported by any evidence whatsoever (only "speculation and wishful thinking"), then how is it that the study of Biology has been able to progress at all in the last 150 years?

The ToE is utterly foundational to all of the life sciences and much medical research, so if it was so very wrong, all predictions based upon it should fail.

You fail to provide any evidence in support of the claim that the 'Theory of Evolution' is "utterly foundational" to life sciences, and medical research. Your first claim then, is irrelevant to the discussion. Your comments which present arguments without evidence are seeming very similar to the rhetoric of politicians on FOX News. Cite these elusive "predictions based upon it". Or is it "Common Knowledge"? That simply won't float.

..................................................................

Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 10-25-2006 6:07 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by joshua221, posted 10-26-2006 10:51 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 46 by FliesOnly, posted 10-27-2006 11:16 AM joshua221 has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 44 of 210 (359190)
10-26-2006 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by joshua221
10-26-2006 10:50 PM


lol

can't believe I just wrote that crap

dumb stuff this all is

o well

Edited by prophex, : ss

Edited by prophex, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by joshua221, posted 10-26-2006 10:50 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-26-2006 11:01 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 64 by nator, posted 10-27-2006 6:33 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 48 of 210 (359317)
10-27-2006 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by FliesOnly
10-27-2006 11:16 AM


Re: What other choices are there?
The conclusions that you draw of scientists who would have squandered such valuable time studying, and writing these thousands of papers cannot be assumed. An individual, a creationist, could observe the work that has been done, and think that it is a respectable effort in order to prove a theory about origins. This creationist could respect these efforts, and never think that these scholars are imcompetent, much less liars.

The assumption here simply does not work. You both are inventing a hypothetical argument which relies on a subjective, and vague assumption about the qualities of not some, but even all creationists.

Edited by prophex, : No reason given.

Edited by prophex, : No reason given.

Edited by prophex, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by FliesOnly, posted 10-27-2006 11:16 AM FliesOnly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2006 1:28 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 53 by FliesOnly, posted 10-27-2006 3:37 PM joshua221 has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 49 of 210 (359318)
10-27-2006 12:56 PM


The entirety of this topic does not work, and probably should not have been promoted as a valid argument. It's likeness to Fox News is tremendous.
Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2006 1:29 PM joshua221 has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 55 of 210 (359347)
10-27-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
10-27-2006 1:28 PM


Re: What other choices are there?
It's not assumed; it's concluded from what creationists are telling us about the science behind evolution.

They claim it's not there, period. That every piece of evidence evolutionists have doesn't actually exist. According to creationists, evolutionists are at best mistaken or simply parroting the unchallenged statements of their authorities, or at worst engaged in a deliberate attempt to suborn science to hoodwink the "common person."

Those are the literal claims of creationists. What else can we take from that other than what Schraf has in her OP? Creationists don't simply assert that scientists are merely coming down on the wrong side of an ambiguous question; guessing "A" when it's hard to tell the difference between "A" and "B".

The assertion of creationists is that evolution, top to bottom, is flat-out wrong, and that scientists aren't simply slightly mistaken about an obscure point of fact; they're as deluded as the guy in the straightjacket who asserts he's Napoleon.

Your statements are void of any evidence whatsoever, even the common usage of anecdotal evidence is missing. Your assertions of "creationists" has displayed a close-mindedness toward opposition, and an attitude which allows no further alternatives presentable to a linear mind.

These are not the views of creationists. This hypothetical argument once again proves and shows nothing. Your generalizations of the creationist perspective only shows a lack of understanding.

Creationists can and do respect the efforts of science, and would never think that scientists and scholars are imcompetent, much less liars.

Science is a term used to describe observing and beginning to understand the physical world, and all that entails. Creationists like most human beings I would say respect the ability to observe and record accurately. I would like to see some evidence for Creationists who say that they find science deplorable, and that they think scientists are liars. I want you to quote them here. Then we can continue.

Edited by prophex, : No reason given.

Edited by prophex, : No reason given.

Edited by prophex, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2006 1:28 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by anglagard, posted 10-27-2006 5:09 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2006 5:34 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2006 7:13 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 56 of 210 (359349)
10-27-2006 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
10-27-2006 1:29 PM


It's the way you and schraf are proned to arguing it seems.

No evidence, straight rhetoric, lies, and anecdotes.

It isn't malicious, I don't think that either of you really realize it.

Toodaloo haha.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2006 1:29 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by nator, posted 10-27-2006 6:47 PM joshua221 has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 57 of 210 (359350)
10-27-2006 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by FliesOnly
10-27-2006 3:37 PM


Re: What other choices are there?
After more than 150 years of conducting scientific research related to the ToE, and still having a segment of the population saying that it is all wrong because it contradicts their "beliefs" or disagrees with their "faith", it's really not much of an assumption to conclude that these individuals must hold scientists in very low regard...to the level of incompetence. Or worse yet, being liars.

Does holding an individual, or groups of individuals, in low regard induce one to believe that they are incompetent?

And if one holds a person aloft with much esteem, would that increase the level of competency of that individual?

As you can hopefully deduce, This is never the case.

And if an individual rejects a particular scientific idea, no matter the amount of evidence which supports it, would that in fact, mean that this individual rejects science, finds scientists deplorable, or finds scientists as liars?

Nope.

I will say it again, the premise that of which started this entire topic does not work. On top of that, it is all hypothetical.

Edited by prophex, : No reason given.

Edited by prophex, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by FliesOnly, posted 10-27-2006 3:37 PM FliesOnly has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 10-27-2006 6:56 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 59 of 210 (359357)
10-27-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
10-27-2006 4:36 PM


Re: Your view
That's just wierd.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 10-27-2006 4:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 69 of 210 (359385)
10-27-2006 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by anglagard
10-27-2006 5:09 PM


Re: What other choices are there?
Perhaps not all 'creationists,' but I would say that Young Earth Creationists (YECs) must think 99.85% of all geoscientists and bioscientists are either incompetent and/or liars. Otherwise, why would they denounce their theories without even bothering to rationally examine the tremendous amount of evidence for such theories.

They do?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by anglagard, posted 10-27-2006 5:09 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by subbie, posted 10-27-2006 7:40 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 70 of 210 (359386)
10-27-2006 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by nator
10-27-2006 6:47 PM


quote:
Throwing a few mudballs while you run away from arguments you can't address, kiddo?

Snowballs


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by nator, posted 10-27-2006 6:47 PM nator has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 72 of 210 (359393)
10-27-2006 8:24 PM


General Reply mostly for Crashfrog
I guess I wasn't aware of all of the creationists out there who denounce the work of genuine and Phd-touting scientists as bunk, perhaps lies. Dr Adequate. Glad that was cleared up finally.

Thomas Aquinas provided a rather detailed, and expansive argument for God a long time ago. I have yet to read it in it's entirety. But that doesn't matter for this. In this argument which, among other arguments have been presented, and arguments of my own on here, he used logic to formulate his ideas. He didn't resort to the mindless quality which the term "faith" bestows onto one's conscience.

Creation has been accepted for a vast number of reasons, science included, logic included. Of course, arguments from science have not shown conclusive evidence that a creation occurred, not even considering a biblical one. (Unless you call philosophical/logical arguments part of science, as they use descartesian methods when dealing with thought, and presentation.)

A man as myself respects science as it is. A field of study dedicated to ideas of and pertaining to what is observable. (Allow this over-simplification to pass.) Relativiy, Time (Hawking), Quantum physics, etc... I have great respect for the study. Einstein's efforts for unification stand out most definately. I love how there is a field where intellectuals reside, where mediocrity is weeded out by publishing works to advance our knowledge of our environment.

But I also know that there is much more to life then this purpose. There is existence, there is philosophy, ideas of God, being, humanity, and society. Important questions, and important ideas. There is much of this in the texts of the Old and New Testaments.

I have written posts on why I reject evolution. It's social implications, and it's ability to increase this already absurd being, but perhaps even that now seems stale. I do not think that scientists are liars, or cheats. They are men who study the world, and seek to find some sort of answers through it. They are misguided, and looking in all the wrong places. They hold a purpose similar to that of a ditch-digger, or of a custodian. There is no difference between their minds and the minds of men who illegally work here from another country. They squander thought on stars, on planets. They squander lives on evolution.

The piles of evidence mean nothing to me. Yet I do not see these men as cheats and liars. Incompetent at what they do? Of course not. Possibly incompetent in knowing where truth should be sought.

Is this horrible? How can I reject such a theory? A theory which rests on millions of fossils, and even wholly reconstructed "early humans"?

I will not be degraded by such a theory of origins. I seek what is true in myself, and in God. God, and my existence are so entwined that I can see it. The only possible explanation for existing would be finally to reach a state similar to that of God. Transcending what is real, a state of knowledge which expands beyond anything which we feel is true. I feel that this would be the only noble goal, for a creator to give existence. For, we can know, we can know that we exist, we can know that there exists a transcendental theme to our lives, one that involves much more than the trivial pursuits of our "everyday lives". One which involves the teachings of Christ, and of Siddhartha. Of existentialism, of truth.

Otherwise, there is no essential meaning to any of it, and we are part of a mindless being, which has been enacted without reason, and without inherent purpose.

Thought on a different plane has taken me. You will object that I am "running away". As I first came here to defend all that I loved from the minds of all of you, using AIG, and HOVIND, now I can safely say that none of that even mattered. Maybe only significant in that it was what I cared about, it was for all whom I ever respected and truly loved, for all of the men who sat on those fields and thought. For my first teachers, and my first oppurtunities at knowledge, and salvation. Salvation from not only mediocrity, but from a non-existence, from a life similar to a scientist, or a professor. Similar in that it is utterly without meaning. Equivalent to a 9 to 5 job anywhere, doing anything. I am forever still grateful to that place.

I had to get to the points of subsequent replies.


Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RickJB, posted 10-27-2006 8:35 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2006 10:02 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2006 12:45 AM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-28-2006 4:37 AM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 103 by nator, posted 10-28-2006 3:43 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 106 by nator, posted 10-28-2006 3:58 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 148 by FliesOnly, posted 10-30-2006 7:29 AM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 76 of 210 (359412)
10-27-2006 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
10-27-2006 10:38 PM


Re: No creationist but....
Damn, that post made me so sad.

Sad for everyone here, including myself.

Like this whole thing is dead, and this whole board is dead. Like the evolution versus creation thing is over.

I'm prolly just tired though.

Edited by prophex, : No reason given.

Edited by prophex, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2006 10:38 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2006 11:15 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2006 12:55 AM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 113 of 210 (359549)
10-28-2006 7:59 PM


Faith is acting strangely, and questionable evidence.
Whats with the threats of suspension? Didn't seem necessary, kind of obnoxious. Seems like you are angry because you pulled yourself out and everything.

The above comment is off-topic. Do not respond.

I will try to compose my thoughts within a week or two, to complete something lengthy on why I reject evolution. Right now my argument is seeably weak. I won't rehash any of my previous arguments here. No old news. I'll make it so it can't be taken out of context, because it will be so good.

Edited by AdminNWR, : topic drift


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019