Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8962 total)
146 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 144 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,776 Year: 2,524/23,288 Month: 715/1,809 Week: 147/225 Day: 6/44 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Church Is Not Enough?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 32 of 110 (674197)
09-27-2012 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 1:59 AM


quote:

Well, this brings to mind that evolution is taught in schools, not that I disagree with that, but that, as one evolutionary philosopher, Michael Ruse, has stated, evolution is a religion. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full Since it is a religion, why is it given more exposure than other religions? Why not give an equal exposure to all? (That means none at all)

That is not exactly an accurate presentation of Ruse's position. In fact you are engaging in what Ruse calls "a rhetorical debating trick" in the very article you refer to. Ruse does not deny that evolution is a scientific theory, worthy of being taught in school. If there are religious elements (which is all Ruse says) these should be left out, of course, but the science can and should remain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 1:59 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 3:25 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 34 of 110 (674203)
09-27-2012 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 3:25 AM


quote:

You are beating a strawman here. I do not state that evolution is NOT a scientific theory. It is. It is also religious, as Ruse has pointed out. And it is not easy to separate the religious parts and the non-religious parts.

In fact it is not a strawman, since you quite clearly wrote:


Since it is a religion, why is it given more exposure than other religions? Why not give an equal exposure to all? (That means none at all)

Quite clearly you presented evolution as a religious view in itself, rather than - as Ruse presents it - a scientific theory with associated religious elements.

And really I don't see the difficulty in separating out religious elements - which so far you haven't even bothered to identify. I'd say that those elements are mostly errors from the scientific point of view anyway (e.g. the identification of evolution with "progress" in a broad sense).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 3:25 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 4:44 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(4)
Message 37 of 110 (674209)
09-27-2012 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 4:44 AM


quote:

Let me make this clear. It is a religion. It is also a scientific theory. There is nothing contradictory between the two. Me highlighting that it is a religion is not an error. I will explain following.

In the first Ruse article you quoted, Ruse was really quite clear about where the elements he identified as "religious" were and also clearly stated that the core of evolutionary work was scientific, not religious. So clearly that article contradicted your claims and it is not a strawman to point that out. Moreover, if evolution is a valid, mainstream scientific theory that is clearly a good reason for it to be taught in schools. Are you claiming that you had not thought of that?

quote:

These are some of the reasons why evolution (and atheism, by extension) is a religion: According to Smart, N., 1996. Dimensions of the sacred: an anatomy of the world’s beliefs. HarperCollins, London, there are seven dimentions of a religion.


Obviously the extension is invalid....

quote:

1. Narrative: Religions as a whole has a origins story and man’s part in it. Evolution explains where man came from (Where something came from nothing, and where humans evolved from animals, thus man is just another animal.)

Many things involve narrative, this is not a reason in itself.

quote:

2. Experiential: There are two aspects to this. One: By the founder, before founding the religion. Two: By later adherents. Religious ceremonies are emotional events. There are evolutionists that feel liberated after converting. http://old.richarddawkins.net/...ers-the-atheists-39-prayers

Atheism, of course, is not evolution so your "evidence" is not relevant. Moreover there are no ceremonies nor any insistence on emotional experiences so this point seems to apply more to sports fans than to the science of evolution.

quote:

This religion of which I am describing requires a denial of the afterlife. Since there is no afterlife (Provine, W.B. 1994) then the highest goal is happiness. According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it. Evolutionism requires faith to believe that the laws of biology, like those of biogenesis, can be violated, without evidence.

Humanism is not evolution, evolution does not require denial of the afterlife and evolution violates no laws of biology. So everything you say here is irrelevant or false.

quote:

3. Social: The social dimension of religion looks at the hierarchies and power structures present within the religion. In missionary religions, it also includes how people get converted and how missionaries go about their work. Dawkins writes in the preface to The God Delusion, “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” Essentially this is what any missionary would want accomplished, to their own religions, of course.

Atheism is not evolution, so again your "evidence" is irrelevant.

quote:

4. Doctrinal: Doctrines are the beliefs and philosophies that develop out of a religion. The doctrines, ethics and goals outlined in the Humanist Manifesto, while being atheistic and accepting evolution as true, are opposite of what would be expected if they were solely derived from the evolutionary narrative. This is because Humanism also makes the assumption that humans are basically good. By and large, atheists believe and adhere to the things written in the Humanist Manifesto, even if they don’t know the specifics of the document.

Humanism is not evolution. Therefore your "evidence" is yet another irrelevance.

quote:

5. Ethical: Evolutionism is a morally relativist religion. Most Atheists adhere to one ethical system or another, but in Atheism there is ultimately no foundation for morality, as Dawkins and Provine has stated. Many systems of ethics have been proposed; utilitarianism is probably the most popular one. This contradiction was highlighted by Dawkins when he said “I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.”

Well, here is a point where quoting Ruse might have done you some good. Certainly it would be better than wasting time talking about atheism again. However, any moral aspects are easily separated from the science of evolution, as Ruse recognises, so even the better argument would fail.

quote:

6. Ritual: Evolutionism is a relatively recent religion, about 200+ years old. Hence there is not much to commemorate. Things that is commemorated are: Darwin’s Birthday, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’s publication date, etc.

In other words you have to clutch at straws. I would dare say that there are far greater commemorations associated with Independance Day or even Martin Luther King Day in the US, so it seems that you have nothing of significance here either. You don't even mention any actual rituals!

quote:

7. Material: The material dimension of religion, says Smart, includes all the physical things created by a religion such as art and buildings, and also natural features and places treated as sacred by adherents. Nature itself is treated by some as sacred. (Such as when “N” in nature is capitalized)

Again, nothing of any use.

quote:

Maybe I’m too long, but I want to be complete. So, how do we separate the religious parts?

You could have left everything out and still been complete. The only possibly religious elements are the ethical dimension and the idea that Nature is sacred - neither of which are part of evolutionary science. Both are easily left out. And i have no idea why you kept talking about atheism or humanism instead of evolution, I mean, do you really think that The God Delusion or similar books are set texts in biology classes ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 4:44 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 6:04 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 45 of 110 (674225)
09-27-2012 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 6:04 AM


quote:

As a scientific theory I agree that it should be taught. It is jumping to conclusions to even suggest that I have never thought of it. The dogmatic way it is held is what I disagree with.

It seems that I have to remind you of what you said - again.


Since it is a religion, why is it given more exposure than other religions? Why not give an equal exposure to all? (That means none at all)

And how is the teaching of evolution more dogmatic than the teaching I experienced of Newton's Laws of Motion - which had been known to be merely (very) good approximations decades before I went to school ?

quote:

Why? Although I do know that Provine said that “...belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” (Provine, W.B. 1999)

Since atheism does not entail evolution it is invalid to go from the assertion that evolution is a religion to the claim that atheism is a religion. Moreover your quote from Provine at most asserts that evolution entails atheism which is the wrong way round for you (more likely it entails that if there is a God, that God did not detectably intervene in the history of life on this planet - a position clearly compatible with a Deistic view of a God who created our universe but does not intervene in the workings of the universe after that).

quote:

Do you need to point that out? There are seven cumulated reasons.

Yes, I do because it it the ONLY one of your seven "reasons" that strongly applied to evolution as science.

quote:

Did you read the link? I’m assuming not. You still have not provided evidence for your first statement.

Yes, I did read the book review of The God Delusion that you linked to. It doesn't say anything about conversion or evolution at all. And which statement have I failed to support? "Atheism is not evolution"? I would have thought that was obvious, but if it is not see my point about Deism above. Clearly it is possible to accept evolution and believe in some kind of God even if Provine disagrees (and you have not shown that he does)

quote:

This is the informal logical fallacy of elephant hurling. You make statements without any supporting arguments, when I have. Do you intend to provide any logical, fact-based arguments?


This is untrue, you have not supported any of the claims that I objected to. I have seen no argument from you that Humanism is evolution, that evolution denies any belief in the afterlife or that evolution violates any actual laws of biology. In fact every one of those is so obviously absurd that they require no refutation.

quote:

Are you fond of quoting this “mantra”?

If you make the same error time and again repeating the fact that it is an error seems reasonable.

quote:

Can you please show me where I said humanism IS evolution?! I would willingly correct that!

Sure, you do that implicitly in points 2 and 4 when you start talking about Humanism. Since your argument is all about evolution you should be talking about evolution...

quote:

Which person did I quote, exactly? I did not know Russ and Dawkins were the same!

I didn't say that you quoted anyone. I said that you SHOULD have quoted the Ruse article that you linked to in your first post to this thread, since you would at least have found something that was not completely irrelevant, even if it did not really help your case.

quote:

Is something that is more widely commemorated more significant to this discussion? This is about humanistic commemorations. Are you the one that is clutching at straws?

A simple google search would vindicate me. http://darwinday.org/ YOu might come up with the objection that this is not worship, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/worship The behavior do ft into the definition of worship.


Yes, secular events that are more widely celebrated are relevant, since they show that the force of your argument is very weak. Certainly "Darwin Day" (which I have never celebrated) doesn't seem to represent any more "worship" than those events. And where are the rituals ?

quote:

Why did you not respond to my arguments? Surely it has nothing of use for you to win the debate, but it does have a use for proving my point. Hand-waving such as what you have just done is just not what debate is all about.

You HAD no argument. How does "Some treat Nature as sacred" indicate that evolution itself has any "material" aspects of a religion ? You don't even attempt to show that this idea is part of the science of evolution. There is no argument to respond to.

quote:

Actually, I have used the Greatest Show on Earth as reading material for my class. So. Unless you can rationally contradict Provine, I will have to assume, an argument from silence of course, that you have no rational argument against his statements.

The Greatest Show on Earth is a popular science book, not a book on atheism so obviously it is not really relevant.

As for the Provine quote I have shown that it does not support you even if Provine is entirely right, so I have no need to argue against it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 6:04 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 9:22 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 54 of 110 (674276)
09-27-2012 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 9:22 AM


quote:

It seems that I need to remind you of something. Do you know what is rhetorical? Is the logic too difficult for you to follow? If evolution is a religion, which I assert it is, then why is it not given the same treatment as other religions? Yes, it is a scientific theory as well. That’s not my point

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 ?

quote:

Dogmatic about the religious portion of evolution. Like as when Scott (NSCE) said, “In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.”

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.

quote:

More hand-waving and muddying of the situation from you

No, valid points which you either can't read or can't refute.

quote:

Let me show you simple logic
Consider the statement “A car is a vehicle.” True? But is “A vehicle is a car” correct?

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.

quote:

Deism. Occam's razor demands that he is an unnecessary hypothesis. Hence he does not exist. Do you know what Occam’s razor is? If such a god DID exist, we would be unable to prove that he exists. So claiming he did exist would be an argument from silence.

Apparently I understand it better than you. Contrary to your argument above Occam's Razor is only a useful heuristic, not a proof. Even if your claim were correct the most you could say is that belief in such a God was non-rational. However, for your claim to be correct you must assume that all the cosmological arguments for God are unsound - a curious position for a creationist. Because if even one is sound, a God that created the universe would not be unnecessary in the sense of Occam's Razor.

quote:

I thought I was talking about evolution as a religion?

That was what you said you were going to do, but apparently you found that too difficult and had to drag in atheism and Humanism as well. If you find yourself doing that then you really ought to go back and question the proposition that you are trying to argue for.

quote:

The reviewer does talk religiously about the book and it’s significance.
How does the quote show that he does not? If you do not understand, see my above reply to deism.

I don't see the reviewer talking religiously about the book, but even if he did it isn't even a book about evolution. So it would still be irrelevant.

quote:

I have stated that evolution, since it requires life to originate from non-living chemicals, is in violation of biogenesis. I don’t know why you’ve not seen it. I have never said humanism is evolution. That is your interpretation of what I said. I said that evolutionism is atheism, atheists as a whole follow the humanist manifesto.

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.

As for your second point, even if evolution were atheism (and it isn't as I have already shown) and even if most atheists were Humanists (they probably aren't in any formal sense) it wouldn't matter. You would STILL be talking about Humanism, not evolution.

quote:

‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’

(Provine 1994) (Oh, I like Provine, and just to tell you, Dawkins supports this view. This can be gleaned from reading his writings.)


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.

quote:

I talked about humanism. I did not say humanism=evolutionism. You really want me to talk about evolution?

So in fact you knew that when you were talking about Humanism that you were NOT talking about evolution ? Didn't you say above that you were talking about evolution being a religion? Religious aspects of Humanism simply aren't relevant to that question.

quote:

I don’t think you said “should”. Please be clearer on what you say.

I clearly suggested that it would have been helpful to your case - even if inadequate - unlike what you did write. And really that's close enough for a paraphrase.

quote:

Britain's Sir David Attenborough has influenced countless millions with his spectacular television nature series Life on Earth. Writing in a British newspaper, journalist Paul Johnson calls this well-known nature guru the 'high priest' of the neopagan nature worship of our time.

If he means that literally, too bad for Paul Johnson.

quote:

He writes, 'Everything Attenborough shows is presented as undeniable fact. But it is not all necessarily fact, or fact without qualification or theory. Behind Attenborough is a theory of life. The tale he tells does have a message, an ideology, a set of values. He is a Darwinist. His approach is propaganda of a distinctive kind, which not merely detheologizes life but demystifies it, even dehumanizes it. His Homo sapiens is different in degree but not in kind from his molluscs. Behind the smooth commentary is the ultimate horror of nothingness.'
Drawing attention to the fact that seven hundred Nepalese villagers were apparently driven out of their ancestral homes to make a safe environment for six white rhinos, Johnson says, 'Attenboroughism' (i.e. pushing evolution as fact) has contributed to 'the creation of a mentality which puts all forms of life on a level moral plain and emphatically denies that human life has any special sanctity.' Therefore the increasing push for abortion/euthanasia.
Sunday Telegraph, May 5, 1996, p. 28.

Have you ever seen this before? Oh, are you going to say now that, “Oh, this is only part of it, not the whole!”?


No, I'm going to say that firstly the addition to the text is clearly dubious (obviously it is conservation that is the primary consideration, not evolution) - and secondly I am under no obligation to agree with Paul Johnson's opinions any more than I have to agree with Provine's.

quote:

One question. How is it (Provine) not supporting me?

I already explained it. Even if evolution entails atheism (and the quote doesn't even go that far) it doesn't mean that atheism entails evolution, Thus there could be atheists which do not believe evolution, therefore even if evolution were a religion it would nt mean that atheism was a religion.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 9:22 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:41 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


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 that’s 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:

Here’s 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. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s 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? I’ll 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. Here’s 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 don’t have to repeat myself, Paul.

It’s a book about how belief in God is delusions, and one of the major props is evolution. (No, I’m not going to cite what’s in the book to prove that I’ve read or not, that’s 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 can’t 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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


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


quote:

Let’s 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, I’ve 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 that’s not the point. Once again, what is your definition of “evolution”, I’ve 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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 77 of 110 (674368)
09-28-2012 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by LimpSpider
09-28-2012 4:42 AM


quote:

Is that not assuming that the plants did indeed change? Also, are you sure that they are not alive? There were quite a few species that were thought extinct for like over 10 million years that are eventually found to be still alive. About the only a few species, I’m going to do some research on that, should be finished and will answer about by next week. (sorry about the delay.)

No, it's not an assumption. I really don't think that you will find many examples - and if we push it back further we find even more differences.

quote:

I said it was not the best thing for you to do, not that you shouldn’t do it. Which obviously false statements? How are they wrong? Or rather, Why? Because I can’t seem to find them.

Since I hadn't even done it - unlike your attacks - it seems a bit pointless. And we already have an example, and more to come...

quote:

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
Not what I said. If evolution is a religion (P), then it should be given treatment same as other religions (Q). Unfortunately, evolution IS not treated in such a manner, so it should be =/=Q. Hence it is not a logical fallacy.

There is just one problem with that. It isn't what we were talking about. What we were talking about it your claim that Provine's statement allowed you to extend the claim that evolution is a religion to claim that atheism is a religion. Now since I have twice explained this - without any attempt to deal with the point from you I believe that I am justified in claiming that I was right. Certainly by your standards....

quote:

So you don’t understand what I was saying? Funny. Dr. seemed not to have any.

And there is another of those obvious falsehoods. I understood your point perfectly well - that is why I know that it does NOT address my points.

quote:

This is the second time you have avoided answering the question, How do you define evolution? The law of biogenesis has never been observed to be broken, you should know that.

In fact I did better than answering your question. I explained exactly which aspect of evolution I was referring to and explained why the "law" of biogenesis supported it.

You, on the other hand have evaded offering any reason why evolution requires abiogenesis at all.

So if I tell you that by "evolution" I mean the scientific theory of evolution, including natural selection, common ancestry, population genetics etc. does it help ?

quote:

I do object. I’m just not making it an issue here.

Then why did you say that you had no objection to common descent ?

quote:

I referenced them, which is presenting their arguments enough. Basically, the question was about whether you wanted to see who's “list” was longer.

No, providing a reference to a book which might contain an argument is not enough. At the least you should present the argument. And no, again, I said nothing about counting experts, I simply pointed out that people with similar scientific qualifications disagreed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by LimpSpider, posted 09-28-2012 4:42 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by LimpSpider, posted 09-28-2012 8:58 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 81 of 110 (674387)
09-28-2012 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by LimpSpider
09-28-2012 8:58 AM


quote:

And yet you fail to cite that

Why would I need to cite something we were actively discussing ?

quote:

No, not exactly what I was saying. They are not the same because they are religions. Evolutionism=atheism, which is a religion. It is not, If evolution (P), then atheism (Q). This does not follow and is not what I said.

In other words, I have correctly identified what you were saying and your error.

quote:

If by evolution you mean simply “change”, then I have no objection to that.
I’m arguing based on Kerkut’s definition, which would include abiogenesis, and every other process toward humans. (You may, however, consider it “overworn”)

I'm not familiar with Kerkut's definition but from what you say he is one of a group who thought to extend the concept of evolution beyond the actual theory of evolution. However, this idea has completely fallen by the wayside.

quote:

That certainly shows me that I do not have an argument with you. At least, not on this thread. Population genetics. I won’t go into the really technical details, but seeing that the NET EFFECT of mutations is overwhelmingly negative to the information encoded into the genome, I wouldn’t say that positive mutations, when they do occur, actually helps much. (And no, this is not meant to be a textbook)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

Our continued existence rather suggests that other factors prevent that from being a serious problem.

quote:

If you noticed the example of common descent that I gave (The cousin), you will realize it is different than the one you have just cited. Not from a common ancestor of different species.

Yes, I noticed that your "example" looked like an attempt to justify a deliberate deception. In the context of evolution, of course it means common ancestry of different species - something noticeably missing from your "example".

quote:

I will clarify a few things here. I take no objection to saying that common descent is true, as in salamanders and newts come from the same ancestor. Human and chimps? No.

Your objection is not justified by the scientific evidence... However, I suppose it is at least somewhat relieving to see that you have no quarrel with macroevolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by LimpSpider, posted 09-28-2012 8:58 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 7:04 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 91 of 110 (674492)
09-29-2012 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 7:04 AM


quote:

I would call this affirming the consequent.

If you did, you'd be wrong.

quote:

No one has ever bred a primate into a human.

Humans ARE primates.

quote:

No. I have quarrel with macroevolution. What I see you describing is microevolution. Something which I totally agree with. I can even see that happening before my eyes.

Where do you see me describing microevolution ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 7:04 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 6:52 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 107 of 110 (674533)
09-30-2012 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 6:52 PM


quote:

Would I? Unlike you, I would not be relying on “self-evident” remarks. I would actually explain myself.

Of course, I DID explain how you were affirming the consequent. Twice.

quote:

1. If negative mutations did not have an effect (P), then we would be here (Q)
2. We are here (Q)
3. Therefore, negative mutations did not have an effect.

Of course this is not my reasoning. So I guess the difference between us is that I am honest and do not invent a strawman.

Try this reasoning.

1) If there were nothing to counteract the accumulation of detrimental mutations we would not be here.

2) We are here.

3) There is something to counteract the effect of detrimental mutations

(i.e. the form "if A then B" "not B" "therefore not A", which is valid).

quote:

It is disingenuous to just claim that what I say is wrong without first asking my reasons for doing so. (Yeah, throw that back at me )

Of course, since I knew I had valid argument I was in a perfect position to say that it did not affirm the consequent. Therefore I did not need to hear your argument to know that you were wrong. On the other hand you did not wait to hear my argument before you declared it logically fallacious. So in fact, not only can I turthfully turn your accusation back on you, I - unlike you - have a good reason to declare my innocence of the charge.

quote:

Humans are primates? See my conversation with, was it, ringo?

Last time you claimed to have answered my points elsewhere it was a lie. So I decline to do your work for you. If you claim to have an answer elsewhere, link to it. The forum software allows links to other messages to be produced quite easily with, for example the mid tag.
(e.g [mid=674507] will link to the message I am replying to - the message id is the number in grey in the header.)

The fact is that humans are classified as primates. Every time a human baby is born it is bred from primates.

quote:

Microevolution is change that is incapable of bringing a microbe to a man. Microevolution uses all that you have described to change maybe a canine ancestor to their varied types of the current age.

This makes no sense as a definition. I prefer the standard definitions where macroevolution is any evolution at or above the level of species (i.e. a speciation event is an example of macroevolution - so newts and salamanders having a common ancestor would be an outcome of macroevolution)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 6:52 PM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by LimpSpider, posted 09-30-2012 4:27 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15907
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 109 of 110 (674538)
09-30-2012 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by LimpSpider
09-30-2012 4:27 AM


quote:

Argument from silence.

Now you're just lying. There's no argument from silence there at all. We DO exist. That is evidence, not an absence of evidence.

quote:

No such mechanism has been observed. If it evolved in the first place, why isn’t it still present to counteract the present degradation?

Now THAT is an argument from silence. And given that this is a long-term problem, how do you know that the mechanisms involved in counteracting it are not equally long term, and more subtle in their effects. Consider the suggestions in the paper you cited for a start.

quote:

How am I to know your reasoning if you do not share it?

If you are incapable of working it out you could ask.

quote:

Is the reasoning I gave invalid?

What reasoning ? The invalid reasoning you tried to put in my mouth ?

quote:

No, because not only did you fail to give me your reasoning, when I gave you perfectly logical and valid reasoning from what you said

I have no idea what you are talking about.

quote:

t was not a lie. It was an explanation you refuse to accept.

No. I had to ask for the post, and when you told me the number I found that there was no answer to my points at all. I gave you the opportunity to explain - and you did not.

quote:

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=674506 thereabouts. And, no, your mid tag don’t seem to work

That post isn't even one of yours. It's by jar. And the mid tag works quite happily - I used the noparse tag so you would see the text, not the link. Cutting and pasting the text, gives this: Message 96 Oh look at that it DOES work.

quote:

Having said this, and your continued assertion that I lie, even though I have given you perfectly valid and logical reasons for what I said, I refuse to continue.

You know, the only bit of that that even might be true is your assertion that you're going to run away. And even that is doubtful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by LimpSpider, posted 09-30-2012 4:27 AM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020