Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
36 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, dwise1, Faith, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,955 Year: 18,991/19,786 Month: 1,411/1,705 Week: 217/446 Day: 15/98 Hour: 6/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6805
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 91 of 107 (407935)
06-29-2007 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by whaler777
06-29-2007 10:39 AM


Off-topic reply.
By that i mean i saw most people defend evolution(evilution) with a death wish but refuse to look at other theories with same intensity(creation theory for example)and was wondering why would you?

This isn't true. I, for example, was a literal Genesis creationist. I was steeped in creationism. But I've looked at creationism and I've looked at evolution, and it is clear to me that the theory of evolution is the likely explanation for what we see around us in the world.

Like WS-JW you seem to think that your way of looking at things is the most natural, most obvious viewpoint, and so everyone else must either be liars or be purposely refusing to look at the matter objectively.

Yet there are plenty of creationists who, like me, looked at the matter with a bias toward creationism yet nonetheless came to accept the theory of evolution. Meanwhile, I know of very few, if any, evolutionists who've come to accept Biblical creationism based on an examination of the facts -- a religious conversion almost always occurs first, and then the creationism follows.

It seems, then, that it takes a pre-existing bias to adopt or maintain creationist beliefs, while the actual facts of the case will sometimes break through creationist bias and lead one to recognize the value of the theory of evolution as an explanatory theory. This all suggests certain possibilities about the relative value of creationism vs evolution.

Anyway, sorry for being off-topic, but this idea of evolutionist bias has been coming up a lot lately, and I felt it needed to be addressed. (I probably should have suggested a new thread, but I didn't think it would generate enough of a discussion to be worth proposing.)


Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?

A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by whaler777, posted 06-29-2007 10:39 AM whaler777 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Taz, posted 06-29-2007 11:15 AM Chiroptera has responded
 Message 96 by dwise1, posted 06-29-2007 12:30 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 92 of 107 (407938)
06-29-2007 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Chiroptera
06-29-2007 11:09 AM


Re: Off-topic reply.
Chiroptera writes:

a religious conversion almost always occurs first, and then the creationism follows.


Not meaning to undermine your authority, Mister Bat, but the opposite could be said about evolution.

Many people, including myself, abandoned religion first before seeing through the bullshit of creationism.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Chiroptera, posted 06-29-2007 11:09 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Chiroptera, posted 06-29-2007 11:28 AM Taz has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 93 of 107 (407940)
06-29-2007 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by whaler777
06-29-2007 10:39 AM


whaler777 writes:

I apoligize for the response i made earlier. I was a little harsh and mainly it was due to reading most of these threads about people being closed mind thinking. By that i mean i saw most people defend evolution(evilution) with a death wish but refuse to look at other theories with same intensity(creation theory for example)and was wondering why would you?.


I don't want get too deep into this. I have 3 questions for you.

Are you prepared to stop using anti-biotics? Are you prepared to never take another innoculation? Can you name even one scientifically valid and medically helpful thing that spawned directly from creationism?

There is a better chance in a tornado for 747 to be created from an airplane wrecking yard than for any of these theories to exist. But anyways your wright i'm probably in the wrong area for this discussion. Sorry.

In college, I majored in Physics and Math. And for a time, I was a TA for college math students. Therefore, I am more than willing to see your probability calculations.

Are you honestly looking to impress anyone here? There are research scientists, professors, as well as professionals working in the fields we are talking about. Are you trying to tell us that we are all dumbasses?


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by whaler777, posted 06-29-2007 10:39 AM whaler777 has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6805
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 94 of 107 (407943)
06-29-2007 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Taz
06-29-2007 11:15 AM


Re: Off-topic reply.
I don't see how this affects at all what I said before. I said:

Yet there are plenty of creationists who, like me, looked at the matter with a bias toward creationism yet nonetheless came to accept the theory of evolution.

There may very well be people who became evolutionists for reasons that have nothing to do with examining the facts of the matter; you may be one of these. But I wasn't referring to these people.

What I am saying is that there are plenty of cases where after examining the facts, a creationist will abandon creationism and accept evolution. This suggests to me the strength of the theory of evolution compared to Biblical creationism in explaining the facts.

I also said:

Meanwhile, I know of very few, if any, evolutionists who've come to accept Biblical creationism based on an examination of the facts -- a religious conversion almost always occurs first, and then the creationism follows.

Maybe some people have accepted the theory of evolution for religious reasons; maybe you're one of these people. But this isn't what I am referring to. I'm saying that I'm aware of very few people who rejected evolution and accepted creationism based on an examination of the facts. To me this suggests the weakness of the creationism as an explanatory theory for the facts.

I hope that clears up what I was trying to say.


Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?

A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Taz, posted 06-29-2007 11:15 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Taz, posted 06-29-2007 12:46 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3777
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 95 of 107 (407953)
06-29-2007 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by whaler777
06-29-2007 10:39 AM


By that i mean i saw most people defend evolution(evilution) with a death wish but refuse to look at other theories with same intensity(creation theory for example)and was wondering why would you?.

But that's where you're wrong. We have indeed looked at "creation theory". That's why we're well aware of what's wrong with it. Rather, what I've found is that advocates of and adherents to "creation theory" have themselves not really looked at, nor do they examine it, nor will they. Over the past two decades, I have tried to engage creationists in discussion of their claims and examination of their claims and, with extremely rare exceptions, they have all adamantly and vehemently refused to discuss or support their own claims in any manner and they have steadfastly refused to allow their claims to be examined.

Back in the mid-80's, Dr. Duane Gish of the ICR would often quote from an article by a philosopher of science, Larry Laudan. He even sent me a xerox copy of that article. What Gish neglected to mention was Laudan's assessment of "creation science": that the claims of "creation science" are testable, they have been tested, and they have been proved to be wrong.

Yes, we have indeed examined "creation theory", so we know for a fact that it's wrong.

As is your "tornado in a junkyard" analogy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by whaler777, posted 06-29-2007 10:39 AM whaler777 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3777
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 96 of 107 (407957)
06-29-2007 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Chiroptera
06-29-2007 11:09 AM


Re: Off-topic reply.
Yet there are plenty of creationists who, like me, looked at the matter with a bias toward creationism yet nonetheless came to accept the theory of evolution. Meanwhile, I know of very few, if any, evolutionists who've come to accept Biblical creationism based on an examination of the facts -- a religious conversion almost always occurs first, and then the creationism follows.

It seems, then, that it takes a pre-existing bias to adopt or maintain creationist beliefs, while the actual facts of the case will sometimes break through creationist bias and lead one to recognize the value of the theory of evolution as an explanatory theory. This all suggests certain possibilities about the relative value of creationism vs evolution.

Answers in Genesis carried an interview with creationist Dr Kurt Wise (no relation), who had earned his PhD Paleontology under SJ Gould. Wise had been raised a fundamentalist and has pretty much been a life-long creationist. He also has a reputation for being devoted to the truth and so is that rarity of rarities, an honest creationist.

In that interview, he states that if you only had the evidence to go by, then overwhelmingly evolution would be the most obvious explanation. The only reason why he does not accept evolution is because of his belief in the Bible and his understanding of what he'd have to stop believing should he accept evolution; he stated that explicitly.

And then we also have a string of arguments from the ICR trying to provide alternative creationist arguments and claims to explain away all the evidence that makes it clearly appear that evolution has happened and that the world is much older than 10,000 years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Chiroptera, posted 06-29-2007 11:09 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Chiroptera, posted 06-29-2007 12:36 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6805
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 97 of 107 (407959)
06-29-2007 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by dwise1
06-29-2007 12:30 PM


Re: Off-topic reply.
Hi, Mr. 1. Can I call you d?

The only reason why he does not accept evolution is because of his belief in the Bible and his understanding of what he'd have to stop believing should he accept evolution; he stated that explicitly.

This is what made it very hard for me to become an atheist (moving off the topic of evolution for a post). I had a lot emotionally invested in certain aspects of the fundamentalist evangelical outlook to be able to easily give it all up. In fact, I really fought against the loss of my Christian beliefs.

Which is another example where my biases were in one direction, but my final path in another.


Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?

A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by dwise1, posted 06-29-2007 12:30 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Taz, posted 06-29-2007 12:52 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 98 of 107 (407963)
06-29-2007 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Chiroptera
06-29-2007 11:28 AM


Re: Off-topic reply.
Chiroptera writes:

I'm saying that I'm aware of very few people who rejected evolution and accepted creationism based on an examination of the facts.


First of all, I said I saw through the bullshit of creationism. The only way for many people to abandon creationism is to stop seeing that god has a hand in everything, and this is very close to abandoning god outright. Just about everytime I hear people talk about how after examining the evidence and seeing how all the evidence contradict creationism directly, they all had crises of faith. Some became atheists and some became theistic evolutionists.

The point is it's nearly impossible for one to be able to critically understand the evidence for evolution (aka the real world) while still having the mindset that the world is a magical place with every phenomenon having "goddunit" as the explanation.

Just look at noah's ark for example. It's rediculous to think that there was a world wide flood and that somehow noah's family was able to build an boat big enough for 2 of every animal on earth and feed all those animal for a year. And yet, there are good and intelligent people who believe this story wholeheartedly.

So, I would disagree with you that the lack of understanding or knowledge of the evidence is the reason why a person rejects evolution. It's more than that. It's the so-called "god-sight" that has been ingrained in them since childhood.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Chiroptera, posted 06-29-2007 11:28 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Chiroptera, posted 06-29-2007 1:25 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 99 of 107 (407965)
06-29-2007 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Chiroptera
06-29-2007 12:36 PM


Re: Off-topic reply.
Chiroptera writes:

This is what made it very hard for me to become an atheist (moving off the topic of evolution for a post).


Out of curiosity, what finally made you abandon your faith?

The few people I know that were once true fundamentalist evangelicals who are now atheists have gone through the same thing I did, that it was a crisis of conscience that made us into atheists rather than the so-called overwhelming evidence. I'm just wondering how it was in your case.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Chiroptera, posted 06-29-2007 12:36 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6805
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 100 of 107 (407971)
06-29-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Taz
06-29-2007 12:46 PM


Re: Off-topic reply.
So, I would disagree with you that the lack of understanding or knowledge of the evidence is the reason why a person rejects evolution.

Well, it's not me with whom you're disagreeing since that isn't what I said. I never said that all people, or even most people, will reject creationism based on the evidence. I used to believe that, but my several years on this very board has shown me that this is probably false.

I'm saying something very, very simple: of the people who have examined the evidence and then changed their positions based on this examination, the majority have moved from creationism to acceptance of evolution.

Now you've had training in mathematics and physics, so you understand how logic works. However, it is a tricky thing, I admit, to parse plain English into proper logic; in fact, I skip a section in a text book we use here because the sentences to be translated are too ambiguous to be useful as pedagogical exercises for people just learning about the subject. Perhaps my writing isn't very clear although I am trying to write my sentences in such a way to facillitate the translation into strict logic.

The subject of my comments is a particular group of people, which may in fact be a small group: those people who have examined the evidence concerning biological origins, and then changed their positions based on this examination.

I am not speaking about people who did not change their positions, nor am I speaking about people who changed their positions for reasons that have little to do with scientific facts.

I noted a pattern among this group: that is, most of these people made a switch from creationism to evolution, very few, if any, made a switch from evolution to creationism. Now, this observation may be in error: perhaps very few people ever changed from creationists to people who accepted evolution; maybe there are lots and lots of people who changed from being evolutionists to creationists. If either of these were true, then I admit that this would make my point unsound.

From my observation (which might be in error, but so far no one has challenged me on it -- perhaps someone would like to see if there is any kind of statistical evidence on this, other than my own anectdotal evidence), I conclude that the facts support evolution but not creationism. Of course, there are arguments that one can make against this conclusion, even assuming my observation is correct.

But you haven't made such an argument. As far as I can see, you are saying that there are people who have rejected Christianity for reasons that do not have to do with biological origins. But since I am discussing rejecting creationism not Christianity nor religion, this is entirely irrelevant to my point. Although the majority of creationists are (at least here in the U.S.) evangelical Christians, not all Christians are creationists -- there are even conservative evangelicals who either accept evolution or who do not take a stand on this issue.

In fact, there are people who remain Christians, and there are even people who remain evangelical Christians, who did, upon examining the facts, change their position from creationism to evolution. So your comments about rejecting Christianity don't seem to be relevant to the point I am trying to make.

Maybe you're making an entirely different point, and that's fine. However, it has very little to do with my point, which is about how WS-XYZ and whaler666 (or whatever their handles are -- I'm too lazy to look up the posts at this moment) claim that their points of view are so obvious that all anyone has to do is look at the facts objectively and come to the conclusions that they have reached. I am disputing that, namely that it is possible, and often happens, that people can examine the facts and reason them out and come to positions opposite to theirs; in fact, I am claiming that most of the people who do switch from the opposite position to theirs do so for reasons that have nothing to do with the facts or the reasonable inferences from those facts.


Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?

A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Taz, posted 06-29-2007 12:46 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by whaler777, posted 06-30-2007 10:15 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
whaler777
Junior Member (Idle past 2634 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 05-07-2007


Message 101 of 107 (408063)
06-30-2007 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Chiroptera
06-29-2007 1:25 PM


Re: Off-topic reply.
Now that's a question with alot of mumbo-junbo! Just get to the point would you please the question was, "what made you abandon your faith?". I would of failed you for that answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Chiroptera, posted 06-29-2007 1:25 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by NosyNed, posted 06-30-2007 11:12 AM whaler777 has not yet responded
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2007 12:09 PM whaler777 has not yet responded
 Message 104 by dwise1, posted 06-30-2007 3:56 PM whaler777 has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 102 of 107 (408079)
06-30-2007 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by whaler777
06-30-2007 10:15 AM


Re: Off-topic reply.
As noted: the abandonment of faith is not on topic in this thread. Please let it lay or ask it somewhere else.

Also you might want to watch how your word your posts. This one sounds a little on the arrogant side.

Chiroptera's post is not mumbo-jumbo at all. It is clear, articulate, well-written English. If you want to learn you will have to read carefully.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by whaler777, posted 06-30-2007 10:15 AM whaler777 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Chiroptera, posted 06-30-2007 4:14 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 103 of 107 (408086)
06-30-2007 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by whaler777
06-30-2007 10:15 AM


Re: Off-topic reply.
Now that's a question with alot of mumbo-junbo! Just get to the point would you please the question was, "what made you abandon your faith?"

No it wasn't. If you look at the bottom of Chiroptera's post, you'll see that he was replying to message #98, not to message #99. And if you look at the top of it you'll see that he quotes the statement he was replying to.

I would of failed you for that answer.

Your rush to judgement is positively Gadarene.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by whaler777, posted 06-30-2007 10:15 AM whaler777 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3777
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 104 of 107 (408105)
06-30-2007 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by whaler777
06-30-2007 10:15 AM


Re: Off-topic reply.
As Dr. Adequate has pointed out, Chiro's message that you are objecting to was not in reply to the message containing the question you cite. In fact, that message (#99) has not even been replied to yet. Nor, as NosyNed pointed out, is it the topic of this thread.

Do please start a thread on the topic of what causes creationists to become atheists.

From most of the testimonials of ex-Christians that I have read or heard, the vast majority of the cases involved either betrayal by their religious leaders or their discovery that their religion and religious leaders had been lying to them. They were raised believing these things to be true and then they discovered that it was all just a lie.

The evidence is overwhelming for evolution and an old earth and a long and complex geological history (ie, no world-wide single-year flood that created all the fossils and most of the strata). Creationists' response to this evidence has typically and persistently been to lie about it. To deny its existence, to misrepresent it in every way imaginable, to fabricate their own "evidences". And, when confronted with their lies, to lie repeatedly about that too. And, even after repeated public refutation of their lies, to persist in repeating those lies along with the lie that they have never been answered, let alone refuted. And on top of all that, religious leaders teach their congregations that the creationists' lies must be believed and must be true or else their religion is false.

When believers actually examine the evidence and learn what evolution really is, not only do they discover, as chiro described, how much sense it makes, but they also discover that their religion (as represented by their religious leaders and the creationists endorsed by their religious leaders) had been lying to them about everything that could be checked -- so how then could they believe what those same liars tell them about things that they cannot check.

Please, whaler, do please start a thread on this topic. But please also be sure to read the responses this time.

PS
Before you tell me what I believe and what my position is, without having any idea what it is, let me tell you what it is.

If you reject evolution, then fine. I would prefer that you have not based that rejection on the wrong reasons. Either way, your personal beliefs are your own.

But if you speak out against evolution (or any subject, for that matter) and you use lies and deception to do so (whether or not you personally realize that they are lies and deceptions), then it that is wrong. And if you try to persuade others based on those lies and deceptions, then I must speak out.

If you are going to oppose evolution based on evidence, then I must insist that you handle that evidence truthfully and honestly.

PPS
We really do need to get this off-topic subthread off to its own thread. Each thread here is limited in size, so going off-topic is a serious offense here.

Edited by dwise1, : Added PPS


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by whaler777, posted 06-30-2007 10:15 AM whaler777 has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6805
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 105 of 107 (408107)
06-30-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by NosyNed
06-30-2007 11:12 AM


Re: Off-topic reply.
Thanks for the kind words, Ned, and everyone else, too.

I won't answer the question about my loss of faith here because, as everyone has noted, it is not on topic here and not relevant to what I have posted. Moreover, I suspect that whaler would just make up some sort of pop/evangelical psychological reasons for my loss of faith that would fit into her theological views regardless what I actually said, so I really don't see a point in discussing the matter.

If whaler really thinks that the issue is important, I did start at thread long ago on the topic of what evangelicals think motivates people to not believe. It keeps getting derailed whenever it is resurrected, but it is probably a better venue for this discussion.


Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?

A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by NosyNed, posted 06-30-2007 11:12 AM NosyNed 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 © 2019