Church Is Not Enough?

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

Can you read?Nothing here supports your argument.Are you lying for Jesus?

Well, sure. If there is any religious aspect to evolution, then I disagree with it. The scientific facts, on the other hand, are scientific facts, and the scientific theory is a scientific theory. If any loony wants to derive metaphysical or ethical propositions from this, then I quite agree that this should not be taught in schools or anywhere else. Because creationist rhetoric involves teaching stuff that creationists have made up. To teach what creationists say is to teach things that are flatly false. On the one hand, one would be teaching the evidence for evolution, which is indeed overwhelming, and on the other hand one would be teaching the made-up stuff which supports creationism, which would be equally "overwhelming" if only it was true. Unless one informs students which is true and which is false (which would hardly suit creationists) then they would indeed end up deeply confused. Well, y'know, reasoning. You just asserted stuff. That's not reasoning.

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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. NOW on PBS | PBSNewton can be experimented with. Yes, I know there are experiments on evolution, but none of them have proved that we evolved from microbes, which is the mantra I hear from the media every day, and from my textbook.No hand-waving from you? I’ll let the audience decide, although given their bias...

quote:

---

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

---

Good, at least you recognize some logic. 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.Your reply to my point on Occam has nothing of substance that I did not reply to on other posts, to other people.Re: Dragging the issue. If evolution is atheism, and b and large all atheists follow the humanist manifesto.....I 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.

quote:

---

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

---

I feel no need to reply to you on the second point.As to your assertion that biogenesis supports evolution, Pasteur did not agree. Nor do I. Oh, wait a minute. I think I know why we disagree like this. What is the definition of evolution? (Until that is answered, I can’t reply further on this matter)

quote:

---

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

---

And I suppose you are talking about what Ruse said about them. He is a philosopher of science, not actually a scientist in the sense that Dawkins and Provine WERE. So the question is, Who understands science better.Sure, you are under no obligation to agree with anything. But there is no logical basis for you to feel obligated to do so, or not to do so, for that matter.Evolution is the only way for an atheist to be intellectually fulfilled. Dawkins said it first.

Pigs can fly. Just not naturally.

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. NOW on PBS | PBS

---

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.

Id est, ballistically. Trivial case. Does not apply.

Sorry Chuck, you can't call me a sheep, then ask me not to take offence - life isn't quite like that is it?But never mind, this sheep accusation is commonly put by those who would have us believe in what they believe. It's an odd thing, it's as though they - and now you - think that what they're saying is new and that we haven't thought of it all before. The thing about creationism is that NONE of it is new - it's had the bones picked over for a couple of thousand years and it has now been shown to be wrong. Just plain wrong, so we don't need to believe it any more or teach it in our science classes.Us sheep get it, we really do - we've just noticed that there's no shepherd.

I did say SEEM

You should have made that clear. It was not.

Context, my dear LimpSpider. If I write: "Obviously there cannot be two different true religions", then there is in fact only one thing that I can mean by "true".

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

Common descent, I have no objection to. I come from the same person as my....hundredth times removed cousin? But 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.

quote:

---

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

---

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

Must have missed that. Apologies, Dr.

So, if I said to someone "your SEEM to be a turd," do you think I might avoid a smack in the mouth?If you're going to chuck insults, please don't insult me by being disingenuous about it as well.

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.