Arrogance of Elitism

Before I go, the comment to Paul K about big mouths who jump on teh bandwagon, wasn't directed at anyone. I was just speaking generally. That might have caused you to get annoyed at me Straggler, but I honestly didn't mean it for any particular person.

No, I was just taking the piss. Even he understood the parody. I understand everything I have said about argumentum ad logicam, and how it relates to conflating arguments. This doesn't make me an "expert" as you stated, but that point is irrelevant, as I only have to understand what I am talking about, and I do;I shall now explain the problem, which you missed while jumping to many wild conclusions about me.Ad logicam is the error of taking a person's argument, and saying; "That's a popular refuted argument, therefore we reject your conclusion".Infact, the claimant's actual argument, is not from the axioms of the popular argument, and therefore it is irrelevant to conflate the conclusion. You chose to take offense, because in the first post I stated that not all atheists are like this. I did not mention a specific person.I can think of a few rational atheists who are not at all condescending, even at this site alone.Modulous
NosyNed
Minemoose
Parasomnium.I find the more informed they actually are, the less ad hominem content their posts contain.The thread is a parody Rhrain. That's all - just a bit of naughty mikey-fun. Use your considerable brain, and realize it was just a bit of fun. Even have a go at taking the piss at creos, AS I INVITED PEOPLE TO DO. You did go through them and do you know what you did? You agreed with everything I said and then SWITCHED. For example;"You are right about the appeal to authority, but you are wrong about X, Y and Z".Infact, mikey didn't argue X, Y and Z.I noticed this in each response.

Let me clarify. I ONLY CLAIMED the part you agreed with, I did not state that authority is meaningless. "A person without expertise cannot know that" is a silly claim, as I do know it.I shown that false premisses can have a true conclusion. If I knew that, why wouldn't I know the simple point you state. Anyone knows why a syllogism is sound,. Because it is valid and true. Infact, the burden of proof rests on the claimant. Logic 101. But I do. Stating what evidence is and how science works doesn't prove I don't. LOL Ofcourse, the observation of the higgs boson mass particle. Again you show the O.P. has weight.Again, you agree and say; Ofcourse, this is very basic, and is understood by most people at EvC.If science can never declare truth, why would it's accuracy affect my beliefs, that deal with truth? Biology? How so.Very VERY poor grasp of my posts. I said nothing that would affect biology, as I believe all facts are, "accurate".But thanks for agreeing with the ACTUAL points I made, atleast.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

So you disagree that pigs can still be animals even if I state that they are animals because they are filthy?My ONLY claim was that this is an insight from any logical notation 1. I don't think I am a genius in the least.
2. The conclusion therefore does not follow.i.e. It's a syllogism based on your ability to "know" what I think. Since you have no knowledge of what I think, you are incorrect.I am sure Rhrain will agree. If he doesn't, it's intellectual suicide he commits. But can he agree without going off on a tangeant about what I am apparently saying, according to Rhrain.If Rhrain is an expert, then I WORRY!

The Harry Potter example of an appeal to authority, was MEANT to be false.Don't you know that the whole point is to show you why an appeal to authority is fallacious?OH MY GOODNESS!! This is tragic!Obviously I wouldn't give an example of an expert being correct because what I was arguing was that an expert cannot be presumed to be correct on any related matter, such as "truth". Let me expound;There is a program on the BBC called "Mastermind" where contestants memorize every little thing about their chosen subject. Does this mean that they are correct when it comes to something they state about the subject, rather than an ignorant person? DUH - Obviously!
Does it mean that because they are an expert in this area, that when there's someone with an alternative opinion, to ANOTHER related subject/argument, then that other person is wrong? ofcourse not.The problem is that a theory is not a proven truth, but infact a scientific theory. Knowing the hypothetics of the ToE, as an expert - doesn't mean it happened historically. It means, by inference, you can soundly conclude that you are more able to know the ToE, and it's details.If we PRESUME negation through ignorance, then spontaneous generation experts, in their day, would have been correct, that maggots could appear on dead bodies, from "nothingness", or that steady state is true.Can't you see the obvious error? Assuming the expert is right has no relevance to truth. Rhrain, you said science is accurate, not "true". That's exactly my point here. How can you be so obtuse?

A better example is when people who read fiction books, have views about certain characters. If one person has read the chronicles, and another has read two pages, does it mean that the person with more knowledge is correct about his opinion of a character?No, because he could know the character, and simply dislike the character.Opinion is irrelevant to direct logic/science, because opinion, even expert opinion, is still opinion.In the past, it would have been foolish to disagree with the expert who vehemently claimed that spontaneous generation of maggots on dead bodies, must be true.Yet now we know it isn't true.That was my point Rhrain, nothing more, even if you state that my motives were something else, ad nauseum, anyone can see that I don't need anything else to support me, because the appeal is enough to show how favouring the expert's opinion is not sound.This powerful argument from logic is all I require, to dispose of your waffle in a sharp and painful way.I suggest you guys now refrain, or it will only serve to bring down more pain when I so clearly refute you yet again.

So you agree that it is not necessarily true that a conclusion is false, if the premisses are false? (Which I have stated since almost the beginning fo the thread, so we can assume that that was my claim, yes, not yours.) No, I am saying that to commit ad logicam, you have to infer that a person's argument is not true because YOU conflate it with another argument. I am not incorrect. here is what it is;" Behe, is wrong, therefore there is no intelligent design, because you're basically arguing irreducible complexity ".If the claimant was infact not arguing from exactly the same premisses, his conclusion can be true, that there is design.It's no good saying I am incorrect and then re-phrasing what I said as the correct point. LOL! HERENo, it's logical notation, that a conclusion isn't false because the premisses are.This doesn't mean a conclusion is also certainly true.You are infact arguing the exact same thing now, and still saying I am incorrect. It is quite amusing for someone of your mathematical expertise to do this, but it is entirely transparent to anyone with half of a brain.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

No, because that would also be fallacious; Therefore your ad hominem statements do not follow. Erm, you took my statements and ran. Lame. Not as silly as your ad nauseum insults that carry no weight.My internet is poor, and also, I admitt that I give up debate at times because it is afterall, futile.

No problem, afterall, nothing I have said is unresearched, half-cocked or stupid, but is all based on direct experience.You had no reason to jump to any of that.What is really stupid, is the claims that creation scientists can't know evolution, or have studied, or that they are now "not true scientists" .(no true scotsman)Listen, I was evolutionist. There are Christians who were evolutionist and are now creationists, because they disagree with the presuppositions you need in order to say that the ToE si true.But, well - sorry if a little parody got on your tits so much.

That's your angle on it. We have our reasons for why we think, a different thing.Our reasons are presuppositions that we do not agree with.For example, "the keenest minds on the planet", doesn't negate the keenest mind ever - omniscient God.We are aware that in this present climate, while we respect the different theories, they are essentially only theories, and we know that in scientific history, theories have came and gone.Our beliefs don't actually contradict the facts. I believe natural selection, flagelum changes, beneficial mutation. What we don't agree on, is that your naturalist philosophy is absolute.Why is it so problematic that we don't agree if science itself doesn't promote absolutes?Theories are largely just induction build-up. With the same facts, you can have a Creation-conclusion, but oh no - God forbid that God is able to have precious man be wrong in all his information-accumulation.Is it his fault you accumulated it, and then illogically stated that therefore X,Y and Z MUST follow.That's what doesn't add up - that the scientific method doesn't insist we agree or else, and Darwin doesn't insist we agree or else. ONLY YOU TYPE OF GUYS insist it, so I do not trust your motive.There are so many assumptions.1. Uniformitarianism.
2. Our planet being old, because the universe seemingly is. (X is Z therefore X).
3. The present being the key to the past. (Not logically sound, initiated by Lyell's philosophy).
4. The abiogenesis MEGA-Assumption, despite it not ever having shown any evidence apart from the circular argument that states that because we are here it must have happened. (I could state the same about the book of Genesis).
5. Assuming size and shape of fossils/remains, and then putting them in the assumed pattern through cladistical fantasy.
6. Assuming designs in the fossils prove macro-design when it doesn't.I could go on and on and on. I am not logically obliged to presuppose these things when there are example AGAINST such presuppositions, in teh FACTS.Such as fast fast fossilization and coalification. (ten years). The moon, reversing into the earth if the "present is the key to the past", not credible!The fact that no new added information happens in DNA in the form of a mutation, within modern animals, producing, are prtially producing the beggining of a new system/design. (Always less or more limbs, but never new limbs, and always disease and deformity).These are SOME, yes only SOME of teh reasons I do not go for naturalism, which is NOT SCIENCE, but is a philosophical position of assuming there are natural explanations without proving them, such as abiogenesis.

I have to agree to a degree. I think it is futile talking to them to an extent, as they seem impervious to reason.Science itself is an illusion to a degree in the sense that what is testable and proven is present and tangible in this age of technology, but I simply don't see how that is the same thing when it comes to the ToE because it is largely history and hypothetics. Two things you shouldn't be anything other than TENTATIVE about.

It's a good question Percy. My bouts of web access leave me with little memory of which topic is which so I just try and add an opinion or two when I can.Nowadays I do equate evolution with atheism, in the sense that the general populas is exposed to a consensus that evolution is 'true', or 'the norm', or - and I paraphrase the typical response; 'they know where we came from now', in response to theism.That last one is very prevailent in the public attitude. I do think atheists base their lack of faith on evolution, because what would they base it on?The power of evolution is that it isn't just a science, but that it has religious implications albeit to very specific beliefs such as biblical creationism.But what worries me is that evolution itself makes the ignorant person assume a great many thing against the facts.Such as - the equivocation of natural selection as a fact, with the FULL claims of the ToE. They are not told that natural selection removes information, and that lots of micro equal lots of micro, BECAUSE we have not been shown even one new design information. Mico=macro is false because -3 + 2 does not equal 5. It is an EXCUSE for the lack of mutations. Where are the experiments showing mutation-DESIGNS. (Don't show me flagellum, that proves nothing because it is not the claim of the ToE, which states that morphology can be changed with M + NS.)It hides the fact that abiogenesis is assumed, when 100% of the evidence shows that lifeforms come from lifeforms. You only get organisms because of information.Isn't it even a little convenient to your mind, that you require exactly ZERO evidence of a lifeform coming from nothing? (Don't state that our existence proves it, as that is fallacious.)So evolution stemmed from atheist naturalists within the system.It is not even particularly special itself, the ToE, it's the great many things that are automatically assumed. THAT is the impressive deception that would only come from the master of deception.REMEMBER - objective logic REQUIRES that see thing unbiasedly. So it should concern you that 100% organisms come from other organisms.Pretend evolution doesn't exist in your mind, and THEN ask these questions about information. Pretend you've only ever been shown facts such as deformity and disease. Ask yourself - are there any other facts other than disease, deformity, and natural selection?Look at the facts ONLY, and get back to me.But why should the public think like this, when they have never been taught to think about it. THAT SHOULD STINK to you, with your knowledge of what science is. ( A tentative journey, which works well because it does not claim great things).It's a mistake to just see it as a theory. That is just one aspect of it. It's what comes from it. I don't mind evolution as a hypothetic, but I think people should be shown a balanced picture, because in fairness, people have a right to decide if they want to believe it, and it is deceptive to use natural selection, and pretend that evolution has been observed. NS acting on advantageous traits is observed. Breeding dogs infinitely will get you dogs. Untill you can show a new limb, or a species that stems from a mutational change, you are not aware that you are part of a deception.Atleast think about it Percy. Can I request that?

Hi Peepul, and welcome.I think your example is a very clever little experiment. lucky mice. I think though, that my position is that you still have to argue that the information came from mutation in the past. Don't forget, you are using information already present in another organism.

I agreewith most of what you say. I don't think abiogenesis is movin the goalposts though, because it is a heck of a big claim that matter would arrange itself to become something more than matter. Evolution allows that particular pill to become easier to swallow. Therefore logically, evolution has a bearing on abiogenesis, BECAUSE it claims that ALL organisms came from a simpler common ancestor, which removes the need to explain a "modern" organism.So it's not fallacious to require evidence of abiogenesis.Thanks.As for believers who accept evolution. I know they accept it. But lots become atheist because of evolution. this is also true and I know because of experience.

That's correct. I should have specified. 100% of all observed data.I believe science treats induction of evidence with importance does it not? In this case ALL of the evidence favours that logically, you require information to get lifeforms.Now to bring mistakes to me and claim they produce information requires a lot of proof because why would it? 100% of the evidence shows deformity and disease, and only mutational LOSS is advantageous. (Just NS basically.)Thanks for the responses. Apologies if I don't get back to anyone.