BTW 2
NB4SD-{yeah it's a shopworn cliche but WTF it's Saturday morning}
NB4SD-{yeah it's a shopworn cliche but WTF it's Saturday morning}
In Defense of Science and Theory
- Thread starter wurd2
- Start date
Why be insulting? If you're trying to engage in an honest debate, you just lost with your first word in your first sentence.
You claim you can poke holes in evolutionary theory, and that Wurd2 (and the rest of us who seriously consider the theory of evolution as a subject of worthwhile study) will just deny your self-claimed facts. If you can prove evolutionary theory is false, those who adhere to the theory _have_ to concede your point. It'll take years of your life to actually do the work, document it, test it and support your conclusions; and you have to go into it with the idea that you may well be wrong and if so will have to admit it in your published results. So you better get started.
But the real problem with you (and the religious zealots, in general) and evolutionary theory is that you demand it be presented as an inarguable article of faith, the way you see the Bible or whichever Holy Book you personally read from. You (and those who believe as you do) have been told over and over and over that science does not work that way, does not even pretend to work that way, and never will work that way.
You claim you can poke holes in evolutionary theory, and that Wurd2 (and the rest of us who seriously consider the theory of evolution as a subject of worthwhile study) will just deny your self-claimed facts. If you can prove evolutionary theory is false, those who adhere to the theory _have_ to concede your point. It'll take years of your life to actually do the work, document it, test it and support your conclusions; and you have to go into it with the idea that you may well be wrong and if so will have to admit it in your published results. So you better get started.
But the real problem with you (and the religious zealots, in general) and evolutionary theory is that you demand it be presented as an inarguable article of faith, the way you see the Bible or whichever Holy Book you personally read from. You (and those who believe as you do) have been told over and over and over that science does not work that way, does not even pretend to work that way, and never will work that way.
Why don't you for once put your money where your mouth is and post all these holes in the theory of evolution and evidence for creation.
I can't wait...
And as far as him denying it, it is called refutation, when you post the idiotic crap that I'm sure you will if you actually back up your mouth of course you can expect counter evidence to be presented.
No you can't.
Will be funny to watch him try. Should be entertaining.
dynasty_v6,
I think you're better and above your response. Merely reading the blue key points can help you to correct your misconceptions of science.
The choice is yours: remedy your misunderstandings of science or remain misinformed about it (not recommended).
You've a human brain in your head that is capable of amazing things.
Always take the risk of thinking for yourself.
.
I think you're better and above your response. Merely reading the blue key points can help you to correct your misconceptions of science.
The choice is yours: remedy your misunderstandings of science or remain misinformed about it (not recommended).
You've a human brain in your head that is capable of amazing things.
Always take the risk of thinking for yourself.
.
i work with a few people who actually believe the earth is only 6000-7000 years old, don't believe dinosaurs ever existed and who talk to invisible beings thinking that they can change what is going to happen in the future. when these subjects come up i just have to leave the room.
A small part of this is misuse of the word theory. We apply it to everything from gravity and atomic "theory" (pretty much firm laws that even fundies accept), to string theory, which really is "just a theory" in the sense that the superstitionists think evolution is (that is, a hypothesis).
I suppose this is pretty much what the OP said, but I wanted to reiterate that it would help if we didn't apply the word to wild shots in the dark that lack any advances for over twenty years (ie, string hypothesis).
I suppose this is pretty much what the OP said, but I wanted to reiterate that it would help if we didn't apply the word to wild shots in the dark that lack any advances for over twenty years (ie, string hypothesis).
Science is us asking the questions and letting nature provide the answers.
This is where atheist and believers are created. Since we cant observe or measure the spiritual or heavenly world then it simply doesn't exist in science. Although I think the way nature organizes itself with consistent proportions is measurable evidence of creation.
This is where atheist and believers are created. Since we cant observe or measure the spiritual or heavenly world then it simply doesn't exist in science. Although I think the way nature organizes itself with consistent proportions is measurable evidence of creation.
Actually, the biggest problem is the religiously-enfeebled equate "thesis" with "supposition."
Which is to say, evolution is a working thesis (hence, theory) based on thousands of years of human observation, while creationism is a supposition (not rising to the level of thesis, since no study backs it) put forward by superstitious Bronze Age men.
This is the biggest failure of an argument but you weirdoes adopt so many: the gawd of gaps, slippery slope fallacy, false dilemma fallacy. I will post the list and ensure you know why I **** with you retarded perverts. At the end of the day you swim like sharks around the Argument from Ignorance.
1. Definition:
The phrase "god of the gaps" is used to describe the attempts by some people to justify the rationality of theism by relying upon "gaps" in scientific knowledge. In other words, because science cannot explain some event or object, then it is reasonable to believe that a god is responsible for the event or object.
•Does not follow (Non Sequitur) - a conclusion that does not follow the premise. The fallacy itself is contained in the connection between the premise in the beginning of the argument and the conclusion at the end. The actual non sequitur connection will usually take the form of “therefore...” or “because of that...”. A common religious application of this fallacy is to claim that the bible contains moral laws (premise) and that therefore, a person who doesn’t follow the bible is immoral (conclusion). The easiest way to show that this does not necessarily follow is to simply point out examples that violate the conclusion (moral people who don’t believe in the bible).
•Argument from popular belief (Argumentum Ad Populum) - This classic fallacy holds that because a belief is very popular, it must be true. You can expect to see it take the form of “The majority of the world’s population is religious, so religion must be true”. And then, of course “What makes you think that you’re right and so many people are wrong?” The best way to dismiss this argument is to simply point out that the entire world’s population used to once believe in witchcraft.The fact that belief in witchcraft is not as common today is all but irrelevant since witchcraft is no less incorrect now than it was when everyone believed in it. The similarities between witchcraft and religion, therefore, are almost too obvious to mention - almost.
•Circular reasoning (Tautology) - an argument that restates the premise as the conclusion without adding any information or clarification. Pretty much all biblical arguments make this same simple fallacy - “The bible is the inspired word of god because the bible says it is the inspired word of god”. Another common example of this fallacy is the religious claim that religious belief is based on faith. Since faith is no more than a form of belief, this is exactly like saying that religious belief is based on belief. The logic of this is flawed because a thing cannot explain itself by itself (this would be like trying to define a word by simply restating it) - you have to show how external information backs it up. I like to point out to my theist counterparts that if the bible is strong enough proof that Yahweh exists then a comic book is strong enough proof that superman exists.
•Argument from ignorance (Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam). This argument can take a number of forms, like: “The universe couldn’t have popped into existence on its own, therefore god must exists”, or “The theory of evolution is so unlikely, and so full of made up ideas, it must be false”. Notice that in both cases, a claim is being made on the basis of a lack of knowledge - even though this lack of knowledge is never acknowledged. When someone proclaims that the universe could not have popped into existence on its own, they are basically admitting that THEY do not know how this might or might not have happened. It is the same with claims about evolution - claims that expose just how little the speaker understands about it. The gist of this fallacy is that you cannot claim to know something (god exists, Christianity is true, etc) based on your lack of knowledge of another thing (how the universe got started, how evolution works, etc).
•‘God of the gaps’. Though this is no more than a subcategory of the argument from ignorance, it is such a common manifestation of this fallacy that it deserves its own little segment. The ‘god of the gaps’ fallacy is a defensive retreat that tries to plug god into any gap of knowledge that the scientific community, or just your counterpart, has yet to fill. You don’t understand the extreme complexities of photosynthesis or quantum mechanics? No problem - god must have done it. Scientists don’t yet know exactly what came before the big bang? Excellent - just plug god in there too. There are two general ways of dismissing this fallacy. The first is to explain to your counterpart how the thing he/she doesn’t understand actually works - if you can. The second is to admit that you too don’t know how the thing in question works, but that you can admit this - proudly admit this - without desperately seeking a supernatural explanation with which to plug in gaps of knowledge. You might also want to show your counterpart that the gaps in question keep getting smaller and smaller as science keeps advancing. Just like it used to be thought that lightning and earthquakes and comets were caused by supernatural deities before they were understood scientifically, so will today’s gaps be filled by future scientific explanations. Science has never, in all of history, lost an argument to religion, and never has there been a reversal of a ‘god gap’ that had been replaced by a scientific explanation. The ‘god of the gaps’ is ultimately a defensive losing battle that has been waged by religion for over 500 years.
•False choice - also known as false dilemma, false dichotomy, either-or fallacy. This logical fallacy asserts (wrongly) that there can be a choice between only one thing and another, or that if one thing is incorrect, the other must therefore be correct - all the while ignoring the possibility of other options. This mistake can often be found in the evolution-creation debate, where creationists will commonly assert that there can only be a choice between pure chance and supernatural creation - completely ignoring the possibility of slow incremental evolution through natural selection. This fallacy is also commonly combined with the argument from ignorance/god of the gaps, where it is asserted that either something just popped into existence for no reason, or god must have created it - completely ignoring other options that, as it happens, are being better understood as I write these words. The most important thing to remember here is that if your counterpart skillfully formulates his argument, and is clever enough to lure you into it, he/she could make you needlessly waste quite a bit of time trying to debate yourself out of a tough spot, before realizing that the entire framework of the debate had been based around a false choice. The best strategy is to detect the false choice you are being offered, and avoid making the mistake of taking this bait in the first place.
•False premise - an argument that employs solid reasoning to get to a conclusion, but that depends on a false premise to do so. Look for that false premise towards the beginning of the argument, before it gets to the “therefore..” part. Here is a common example: “1) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. 2) If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God. 3) The universe exists. 4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. 5) Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God”. Notice how the reasoning process is sound but that premise #2 is false, or at least a tremendously unlikely and completely unsupported one. This is a good example of how a false premises will make a brief appearance in the beginning, and then be glossed over as more premises and conclusions are quickly piled on top of it. The trick here is to not allow yourself to get needlessly distracted by flashy conclusions when entire base premises are unsupported or false.
•Reduction to absurdity (Reductio Ad Absurdum) - an argument that attempts to establish the truth of a claim by showing that an absurd (and therefore false) result will follow from its denial. Though reductio ad absurdum is actually a legitimate argument, it is oftentimes misused in order to force an absurd conclusion. A good example is the common religious claim that it is just as absurd to be skeptical about the existence of god as it is about the existence of Caesar Augustus - since you have not personally seen either. This is a false reductio ad absurdum because it ignores evidence other than personal eyewitness evidence, not to mention simple probability, since Caesar Augustus was just a human being and god is supposedly a supernatural deity. Instead of trying to argue against this fallacy, a fun quick way to dismiss it is to simply show your counterpart what happens if you follow this argument's logic even further. In other words, explain to your counterpart that if god is as real as Caesar Augustus, since you have seen neither, then so is Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, since you have not seen them either. Then sit back and allow your reluctant counterpart to dismantle his own fallacy for you.
•Moving the goalposts - a method of denial by means of arbitrarily moving the criteria for proof or acceptance. This is a very common tactic in evolution/creation debates, where no matter how much evidence you will present, you will be told that it STILL isn’t enough evidence. This tactic can easily be dismissed as soon as you expose the double standard and ask your counterpart to present even a fraction of the amount of evidence you presented. Another common use of this tactic can be found in “god of the gaps” type arguments, where it will be asserted that god is necessary for causing any given effect. When you explain that this is not so, and explain that said effect has a natural cause, you will be told that something must have caused the cause you have just presented - thereby moving back the goalposts. This type of argument can go on for quite a while but eventually you will reach a point where your counterpart would have moved the goalposts so far back, that he/she will be left with no more than fuzzy, vague, philosophical abstractions. Once this happens, you can simply point out that the goalposts have been moved so far back from the original subject (physical scientific reality), that your counterpart’s unsupported claims are no longer of any real relevance.
•Argument from authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundiam) - an attempt to establish the truth of an argument on the basis of the speaker’s authority. This might very well be the oldest and most basic of all religious arguments - originally taking the form of an elderly shaman or priest, dressed in elaborate clothing and making loud and dramatic pronouncements about the wishes of the deity. Catholic papal authority and infallibility are prime examples of this fallacy, which pretty much boils down to “because I said so” types of arguments. Keep in mind that many religious apologists also try to assert that scientists, such as Stephen Hawking, are also committing this fallacy when they announce their conclusions about such things as the origin of the universe. But always make sure to remind your counterparts that when scientists make claims, they are basing them on open sourced scientific reason and evidence that can, and is, checked by many others; whereas religious arguments from authority are based on nothing of the sort. In many cases, you might be told that since you are not an ordained religious cleric or scholar, you are not up to the task of debating one, or dismissing religious claims. To this you can simply reply that in the same way you do not need to be a wizard in order to dismiss witchcraft or a Voodoo priest to dismiss nonsensical Voodoo claims, you also do not need to be ordained into any organized religion in order to dismiss whatever baseless superstitious claim you are being presented with.
•Appeal to consequences (Argumentum Ad Consequentiam) - an argument asserting that a hypothesis is either true or false based on the desirability of its truth or falsity. Common examples of this fallacy are: “God must exist because I could not live without him?” or “Atheism is false because it does not provide us with any consolation or a framework of morality” This is the core fallacy in the heart of all religious arguments for the usefulness, goodness and morality of religious belief - an entire category of religious debate that boils down to an attempt to replace objective fact with subjective self interest. It is almost embarrassing to have to inform one’s religious counterparts that the desirability of a religious claim is not proof of, indeed not even an argument for, its actual truth.
•Ad Hominem - a false attempt to dismiss an argument by criticizing the speaker instead of the argument itself. Anyone who chooses to engage in religious debates would be wise to not only detect and expose this fallacy for what it is, but to grow a thick enough skin in order to handle such inevitable personal attacks. Some of the most common ad hominem attacks in the context of religious debates, take the form of moral accusations - trying to point out that your argument is incorrect because you are an immoral nonbeliever. My personal favorite is when my dismissal of a religious claim is dismissed on the grounds of my lack of faith, as if it were a moral failing - and as if this moral failing (even if it actually existed) were a logical basis for dismissing my dismissal. An ad hominem attack is very often a desperate last resort attempt to lash out at you, indicating that your counterpart has run out of logical arguments and defenses, and that it might be a good time to end the debate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the backhanded complement ;-)
However, but if anything you're the mainstream and I'm in the minority thinking out of the box. At age 31, I wouldn't be very far if I didn't know how to think for myself.
It's funny, atheists complaining about bible bangers on this site. But, you guys are the ones starting all the threads attacking Christianity. I don't remember in all my years here of anybody starting a thread attacking atheism.
Do you really think you're going to convert a born again Christian who has seen literal miracles to deny the existence of them? Do you really think you're the only one with science backing you?
The bible does not say how old the earth is, but yes life adds up to about 6000 years. I've never heard of dinosaur denying Christians. Dinosaurs are actually referenced in the bible :lol1:
Just did 1 point:
Evidence for a Young Sun
So, now that I posted something are you a liar?
Seriously, what is the point of these threads? Obviously the op wants someone to disagree with him and post. Then, 4-5 of you will jump and and cheer him on while he attempts to be the alpha male of the thread.
op:This thread will go nowhere like the last 1000 attempts to get creationists to reject science (we have scientists on our side too) or reason.
So you've seen literal miracles....
And science backs it up? Well than by definition if science backs up the "literal" miracles you've seen than they weren't miracles.
Last edited:
You want to be taken seriously by those that are intellectually inspired and you post things like "I've never heard of dinosaur denying christians"...
Seriously, what is the point of these threads? Obviously the op wants someone to disagree with him and post. Then, 4-5 of you will jump and and cheer him on while he attempts to be the alpha male of the thread.
This thread will go nowhere like the last 1000 attempts to get creationists to reject science (we have scientists on our side too) or reason.
No.
The point is that at one time openly denying god or religion was basically forbidden. Over generations progress has been made to the point that religion doesn't have a strangle hold on society that it once did. There is no denying the inescapable truth that most people such as yourself will never waiver from you indoctrination; in the long term science and rationality will win thanks to these discussions that are now happening everywhere.
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs'
This should keep you busy for a while refuting all the nonsense creationist claims...
Users who are viewing this thread
