Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[danielsangeo]

That's not evidence. In fact, it's a logical fallacy.

hmmmm....

Elaborate on this and I you will prove creationalism/deitism is a weak theory.

 

My mission is to get smarter and wiser in life not to rely on logical fallacies.

 

Go on then.

 

On to the evolution hard facts and theories.

 

For example, it is observed that speciation can happen, it is not known that it is due to natural selection.

 

Creationism relies on different logical fallacies for different types of arguments. Sometimes, they use "wishful thinking", while others uses arguments from ignorance, and still others just resort to ad hominem types of arguments.

 

For example:

"Irreducible complexity", for example, is an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

 

For example, it is observed that speciation can happen, it is not known that it is due to natural selection.

 

Essentially this is another "argument from ignorance". We do know that it was due to natural selection. See the "London Underground Mosquito" for more information.

[ProHypster]

That's not evidence. In fact, it's a logical fallacy.

hmmmm....

Elaborate on this and I you will prove creationalism/deitism is a weak theory.

 

My mission is to get smarter and wiser in life not to rely on logical fallacies.

 

Go on then.

 

On to the evolution hard facts and theories.

 

For example, it is observed that speciation can happen, it is not known that it is due to natural selection.

 

Creationism relies on different logical fallacies for different types of arguments. Sometimes, they use "wishful thinking", while others uses arguments from ignorance, and still others just resort to ad hominem types of arguments.

 

For example:

"Irreducible complexity", for example, is an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

 

For example, it is observed that speciation can happen, it is not known that it is due to natural selection.

 

Essentially this is another "argument from ignorance". We do know that it was due to natural selection. See the "London Underground Mosquito" for more information.

 

Sorry, I misstated, I edited my post.

 

Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance.

 

The scientists answer, random complexity is also an argument from ignorance, in reality there is multiple logical positions on the argument of complexity.

[danielsangeo]

Actually, what creationsts claim to be "irreducible complexity"....isn't. Such as the eye. The eye is not irreducibly complex. In fact, nothing has been shown to be irreducibly complex.

 

Complexity isn't random. It follows rules.

[ProHypster]

Well it's all simple to me now, rules cannot be there.

 

Rules in our life are always made for sport events, laws for governance. Both for control

 

This world has rules.

 

Rules have a creator.

 

Whatever the creator is there must be one. Not that it has to be religious.

 

Doesn't it make sense to you at all? From what argument do you think rules can exist without a creator?

[danielsangeo]

Rules have a creator.

 

Why?

[Axeldeath]

See the "London Underground Mosquito" for more information.

 

That was a very interesting read.

[ProHypster]

Rules have a creator.

 

Why?

 

Well, that is, at least how our society works, we are the ones who create rules, they don't just exist.

 

I'm not saying it has to be, it's just, at the moment at least to me it is much more logical since we can connect to that much more than living in a world with random rules.

 

Still, that is just one creationalist argument.

 

Come to think of it, It is an argument by observation, therefore evidence???

 

I'm more interested in the counter-argument though, why would there be rules without a creator?

[danielsangeo]

Rules have a creator.

 

Why?

 

Well, that is, at least how our society works, we are the ones who create rules, they don't just exist.

 

So, someone just came along and commanded that magnets will attract each other at opposite poles and repulse each other at the same poles? Or how about if there's a salty reservoir next to a freshwater reservoir with a permeable membrane, the water equaling out to equilibrium....someone created a rule for that?

 

Not all rules are "created".

 

I'm not saying it has to be, it's just, at the moment at least to me it is much more logical since we can connect to that much more than living in a world with random rules.

 

It's not logical. You are professing, once again, an argument from ignorance.

 

Still, that is just one creationalist argument.

 

Right. Rife with logical fallacies.

 

Come to think of it, It is an argument by observation, therefore evidence???

 

What is?

 

I'm more interested in the counter-argument though, why would there be rules without a creator?

 

I don't understand. Please explain to me why all rules must be created.

[ProHypster]

I don't think that is an argument for ignorance. It is an argument of natural relation.

 

We have no reason to believe that rules aren't made by a Creator, while we do have some for.

 

1. In our own society rules are always made for control and always have a creator.

 

2. It would relate to the world as being a game by someone just like football is a game invented by us.

 

That is the two safe ones I can say.

 

It is deductive reasoning, but that is more than what reasoning people have against a deity.

 

Regardless of that, I need to find out if that is somehow connected to the bible, Koran... which it likely isn't.

 

Maybe in the end both evolutionism and creatonalism theories will be mostly right.

[danielsangeo]

 

What ego!

 

I'm sorry, but just because we make rules doesn't mean that ALL RULES have to be "created". You have to provide evidence of this creator. "It just has to be!" is not an argument. It is, again, a logical fallacy.

[Koockaburra101]

Watch Richard Dawkins build an eye:

 

Part 1

http://youtu.be/sUjd8x-1xM0

 

Part 2

http://youtu.be/ffcWKOZfTxE

 

This of course won't convince anyone but it may be interesting for those of us already "on board"

[ProHypster]

 

What ego!

 

I'm sorry, but just because we make rules doesn't mean that ALL RULES have to be "created".

 

You have to provide evidence of this creator. "It just has to be!" is not an argument. It is, again, a logical fallacy.

 

No, I don't. You do, I am a philosopher though. I know certain things can't be proven and scientists will fancy themselves over it with their huge scientific fundament.

 

Yet again it's called deductive reasoning not a logical fallacy.

 

Scientists have funny reasoning though. I'm tired of science enthusiasts here making fun of philosophical theories.

 

What foolishness.

 

Enjoyed those videos though

 

I guess I can add another one from him..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

 

Yeah, yeah, I know this doesn't mean anything.

 

Guys, the most important thing is to find out the truth for yourself and by yourself, good luck!

I further see no point in arguing here, I am not a science anthusiast, I don't think everything true is science, I think everything true is philosophy so I can't really prove much here, most people are scientists...

 

And remember:

Scientist 3-9 years of University

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) 10 Years of University, highest degree possible.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

Wait, I have to provide evidence of a creator? Or do I have to provide evidence there is no creator?

 

You say you're a "philosopher"...but, at the moment, we are not talking about philosophy; we're talking about clearly defined facts. It's not that we're "dissing" philosophy, it's just that we're not on that subject at the moment. Trying to "change the subject" (as it were) is not conducive to a mature discussion.

 

It's not any kind of reasoning if you cannot support one of the axioms. One of those unsupported axioms is "Every rule must have a creator" (and, by extension, every "creation" must have a "creator"...except for the original creator, of course). You just insist that this is self-evident when it's clearly not.

 

And your video of Dawkins is grossly distorted because it leaves out all that was before it. Dawkins doesn't debate creationists generally because he doesn't want to take the time to educate them on very basic things. The pause you saw was not that he was "stumped" because he has already WRITTEN BOOKS on the question. The pause you saw was the realization that he had been duped into being interviewed by a creationist...then he stopped the recording. Then it started up again when he realized that there was no easy way to get out of the interview so tried his best to educate the interviewer.... on something he's already written books on.

 

The video is just a blatantly gross misrepresentation and I thought you'd know better than that.... This has already been well debunked and even a cursory Google search would've told you that. I'm disappointed.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Rover]

@Rover

 

The second chromosome is the one that is identical to smart apes as far as I know.

It is a structure in the DNA.

 

By the way, I am reducing some of evolution from a scientific theory. I don't believe it is a scientific theory to say that dinosaurs existed some years ago. I believe it is just a theory.

 

I am not questioning scientific theories overall, I believe in scientific theories. I think that some of evolution is a philosophical theory rather than a scientific theory. Because I think that hominids, natural selection and dinosaurs lie outside the realm of science just as rover said.

 

I didn't say that "hominids, natural selection and dinosaurs lie outside the realm of science" at all. I said the super natural lies outside the realm of science because it is unverifiable. It cannot be tested. You're putting words in my mouth.

 

Okay first the story with human chromosome #2

Ken Miller, a catholic evolutionary biologist can explain this story best so I ask you to take a moment and watch this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

 

Second, I know science can only approach the truth asymptotically that is true. We can only work to reduce the error bars to their smallest possible level. But this is not an excuse to obfuscate. There is good evidence to suggest dinosaurs did once roam the earth, most strikingly their fossilized remains. You can always say we can't be 100% sure of anything, but that's not a good reason to just wave away the evidence of their existence. Fortunately you don't get to decide what is a scientific theory and what is not. The scientific community does this, the people who are aware of all the data and finer points of which you as a non-scientist are not aware. They do research, uncover data, check if it matches their predictions and adjust their views accordingly.

They go on evidence, not pseudo-philosophical meanderings centered around obfuscation and subjectivity.

 

Edit:

Rules have a creator.

 

Why?

 

Well, that is, at least how our society works, we are the ones who create rules, they don't just exist.

 

I'm not saying it has to be, it's just, at the moment at least to me it is much more logical since we can connect to that much more than living in a world with random rules.

 

Still, that is just one creationalist argument.

 

Come to think of it, It is an argument by observation, therefore evidence???

 

I'm more interested in the counter-argument though, why would there be rules without a creator?

 

Congratulations, you just anthropomorphized the universe.

You need to prove your premise that because humans create "rules" the universe can not form forces which are constant and predictable (which are thus called laws.)

You are simply assuming that which you are trying to prove, is that not a logical fallacy?

Edited May 26, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[ProHypster]

It is clearly evident here what is going on.

 

Atheism/Monotheism/Polytheism/Creationalism is a subject of philosophy while Evolution is a subject of science*.

 

EDIT: Evolution is actually subject of scientific laws combined with weak arguments but scientists take the argumentive part and make it a scientific theory so it's unfair to debate it with scientists by their rules when they take weaker theories of evolution for granted and as proof.

 

We cannot agree.

 

It's quite sad actually, I thought this argument could come to an agreement.

 

Well, good luck finding the truth. Think, try to be wise and you will succeed in finding the truth.

 

@Rover

The second I read from your text that I don't get to decide wether something is scientific or not, I went, "Ha! Not me, I am a philosopher for the F**** time!"

 

I will watch the video and respond to it later but I can;t ultimately promise you will get any kind of knowledge after filtering my post for science.

 

EDIT: On the last part of your post, really, you scientists baffle me very badly. Why do you assume there was a Big Bang from nothing, that we evolved from a common ancestor (also very theoretical, highly argumentative) and then say eveything needs evidence. Hell why don't you need evidence that you exist? Who choses what you need to prove and what you don't in science. What kind of blasphemy is this?

 

@Daniel

 

Oh crap, really? I just went for the second video on youtube.

Well, I really don't give a damn, that was mainly for some kind of response to "the eye"

Hell, do you think I watch this guy in Ukraine??

Edited May 26, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

Okay, so, does anyone else want a crack at providing evidence that evolution is false or that creationism is true?

[Rover]

EDIT: On the last part of your post, really, you scientists baffle me very badly. Why do you assume there was a Big Bang from nothing, that we evolved from a common ancestor (also very theoretical, highly argumentative) and then say eveything needs evidence. Hell why don't you need evidence that you exist? Who choses what you need to prove and what you don't in science. What kind of blasphemy is this?

 

Scientists go where the evidence goes.

If you are un-aware of the depth and width of the empirical evidence (as you have at times demonstrated) that is not my problem. Sitting in your armchair reading Socrates, Kant, Descartes Hegel etc really doesn't qualify you as an expert on evolution or cosmology. What caused the big bang to "go off" so to speak? I don't know, there is a lack of data which scientists readily admit.

Is a lack of data justification to jump to the conclusion of a prime mover simply because you personally cannot fathom an explanation which does not involve one? If the evidence suggests a prime mover, the scientific community will follow this evidence.

[danielsangeo]

that we evolved from a common ancestor (also very theoretical, highly argumentative) and then say eveything needs evidence.

 

There is evidence of common ancestry. It's not "theoretical" as you claim but evidenced. Really, you need to get educated on the subject before you speak further. I can't teach you the basics over a webforum; unless, of course, we draw up a contract and you start paying me for this education service.

[ProHypster]

Last word here:

 

I honestly think science is not what it used to be.

 

It's corrupted with weak arguments associated with strong evidence.

 

I suggest any science enthusiast here to check themselves what the probability there really is for everything that got supposably happened before 4000 Years BC.

 

I understand the strong foundation of Micro-Evolution and Natural Selection but Macro-Evolution...

You have to really check the "evidence" for it and if you're not going to do it seriously, well I can't help you.

 

@Rover's last post: Why is there not a lack of data for Macro-Evolution then??? Are you sure there was Big Bang? What kind of realistic evidence are we talknig about here when we are talking about the Big Bang that formed the universe and happened 3 Billion years ago????? Are you kidding me, we are capable of proving that, well I didn't know we are that advanced, why don't I see robots yet?

 

@Daniels last post, I'm talknig about the ancestor of all life forms. My terms suck, I don't speak english with ukrainians and both of you rushed me so I couldn't use the dictionary.

[Rover]

Last word here:

 

@Rover's last post: Why is there not a lack of data for Macro-Evolution then??? Are you sure there was Big Bang? What kind of realistic evidence are we talknig about here when we are talking about the Big Bang that formed the universe and happened 3 Billion years ago????? Are you kidding me, we are capable of proving that, well I didn't know we are that advanced, why don't I see robots yet?

 

Since you made it clear this is your last word on it I'll refrain from further engaging you.

I will however leave you this link http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html

 

As I said before, science can only approach truth asymptotically. Are we 100% sure? No. No scientist worth his salt will ever claim absolute 100% certainty.