Begging the Question

[Zosimus]

It's as easy as this: You want me to believe what you're spouting off about? Show me why I should. And if I don't like what you have to say or show, if I don't find your "evidence" compelling - as in ME, personally - then I don't have to subscribe. Even your God grants me this.

Commenting on the poor logic employed has nothing to do with evidence. The strongest evidence is pointless if it is plugged into a faulty logical argument.

The difference between what you believe and portray to others and what I believe and portray is that there are things to look to as evidence for what supports my notion of reality - some of that comes from scientific evaluations that others have shared, some from personal observation, and some from human interaction. As others have pointed out, our reality is fed to us through our senses... that's all we've really got to discern the world around us - to make our way, and to survive. If we can't trust or believe in our own senses, then what are we to trust? My every sense and intuition informs me that God does not exist. I am, literally bound not to believe - that is, unless something truly worthwhile compels me. And believe me when I say I have seen plenty of the paltry excuses for such "evidence" and "witnessing" that exist to have already easily (too easily) dismissed them as unconvincing.

First of all, you have no idea what I believe. You are assuming that I must be a YEC. I'm not. I was commenting on the hideously bad logical arguments that are bandied about here as "proof" of I don't know what. I'm also surprised at the virtual backslapping and high-fiving that so often accompanies arguments that are so insanely bad, I wouldn't put them on a logic test for one of my students.

It appears, additionally, that you have extremely poor reading comprehension skills. That's the only conclusion I can draw from your claim that I need EVIDENCE to criticize your LOGIC. FTW?

You trust your senses? Are you insane? What do your senses tell you about this picture?

 

[Zosimus]

Can I interject and just simply ask why you believe young earth creationism is true? If your reasons are rationalist as opposed to empirical, then that's where the discussion begins.

So why do you believe that YEC is true?

Can I just interject and ask you why you believe that it's acceptable to beat your wife? If your reasons are rationalist as opposed to empirical, then that's where the discussion begins.

So why do you believe that it's acceptable to beat your wife?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Commenting on the poor logic employed has nothing to do with evidence. The strongest evidence is pointless if it is plugged into a faulty logical argument.

Why would you ever care about evidence? Why would you ever care about logic, or logical arguments? As you noted:

You trust your senses? Are you insane?

You apparently don't even necessarily believe in anything you've been presented in your entire lifetime. From the above quote, I have to assume that you don't trust your senses... otherwise you would be admitting insanity - and at that point none of what you say should be considered... period.

First of all, you have no idea what I believe.

Who has the poor reading/comprehension skills? Where did I mention "YEC"? Who gives a flying crap about YEC? Do you believe in God? If not, then sorry... I admit to having made a mistake.

It appears, additionally, that you have extremely poor reading comprehension skills. That's the only conclusion I can draw from your claim that I need EVIDENCE to criticize your LOGIC. FTW?

Just FYI for the future... "FTW" stands for "For The Win". I think you wanted "WTF" - which stands for something else entirely.

You trust your senses? Are you insane? What do your senses tell you about this picture?

And here's the quote where you make the pointed statement that you either do not trust your senses or you are insane - both circumstances which, I personally believe, negate pretty much anything and everything you have posted in this forum. Congratulations.

 

[Zosimus]

Why would you ever care about evidence? Why would you ever care about logic, or logical arguments?

Evidence? No, I don't care about evidence. Logic and logical arguments? Of course I care about these things. That's why I'm here. I want to know why you don't care about logic or logical arguments.

You apparently don't even necessarily believe in anything you've been presented in your entire lifetime.

This follows from... what, exactly?

From the above quote, I have to assume that you don't trust your senses... otherwise you would be admitting insanity - and at that point none of what you say should be considered... period.

Anyone who has seen an optical illusion should know that his (or her) senses are unreliable. How many times have you heard a noise and you were convinced that it was one thing when it was actually another? How many times have you walked up on what you thought might be an animal only to see that it was a rock or something on the street? Senses are unreliable.

Look—if you believe in science, and I assume that you do, you should believe that you don't even see the world anyway. Your brain is guessing what the world will look like 0.7 seconds in the future and relaying this information to your brain. Were it not so, you would never be able to catch a ball thrown to you because the lag of information going from your eyes to your brain is believed to be 0.7 seconds.

And you actually think that your eyes are reliable?

Who has the poor reading/comprehension skills? Where did I mention "YEC"? Who gives a flying crap about YEC? Do you believe in God? If not, then sorry... I admit to having made a mistake.

I'm agnostic you reading-challenged schlimazel. It says so right next to my name, doesn't it? Open your eyes.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I

Can I just interject and ask you why you believe that it's acceptable to beat your wife? If your reasons are rationalist as opposed to empirical, then that's where the discussion begins.

So why do you believe that it's acceptable to beat your wife?

Is the point you're trying to make here is that you didn't claim that YEC is your belief?

If you don't/didn't make a claim, then we have nothing to discuss, and I apologize for assuming that you did.

On the other hand, if you do believe in YEC, I'd like to know your reasons why? Thanks!

 

[Mindmaster]

What you seem to be claiming is that the burden of proof is on the person making the claims. Yet, how do you justify the claim “the burden of proof is on the person making the claims?” Or are we just supposed to take that on faith?

At this point, reductio ad absurdum... Logic is firstly a product of common sense and mutual agreement. For us to agree on anything, we must agree on some basic supporting information to have an intelligent dialogue. If two people of competing views cannot see data and agree that it constitutes a fact then that particular evidence is invalid. (And, no it is not invalid just because you won't believe it..) A good judge of whether a piece of evidence might be suitable is to apply the Occam's Razor test to it to see if too many assumptions are being made. This is why Creationists appear to have a coherent story are actually illogical at every turn. Because things have an apparent order doesn't mean they have an absolute order, as that can only be proved with the data they will ignore.

The creationist's argument is essentially that logic doesn't apply to God, and that is easy to refute -- no one, even God can escape from logic because logic is a product of consensus. The ancients were not stupid, but rather had a different set of agreed on principles but since that time those principles have evolved. We're working with a different set of baselines that are a product of two thousand years of additional growth, testing, and thought.

 

[JerryL]

Commenting on the poor logic employed has nothing to do with evidence. The strongest evidence is pointless if it is plugged into a faulty logical argument.

For the record: I agree. I was well on the way to offering your post a thumbs up.

You trust your senses? Are you insane? What do your senses tell you about this picture?

The normal presupposition is that reality is how we perceive it through our generally accurate senses.

One would be a fool to take a single condition of a single sense on a single person as (pardon the reference) gospel.

My eyes initially tell me some inconsistent things when looking at that picture. So I use my tools to dissect it, and my senses to see the results of that.

When I start measuring this image... when I start moving pieces around... I discover, through my senses, that "A" and "B" are actually identical.

My brain (not actually my eyes) are fooled under a limited set of specific conditions. By changing the conditions... by putting tools between my subject and my sense... I come to what I feel is an accurate understanding of the nature of a thing.

Without this assumption (generally accurate senses of the real universe): I can never get past "I think therefore I am" in terms of what I can conclude.

 

[Shad]

Young or old, can't anybody go back and verify any evidence. Neither can science reproduce creating something out of nothing, therefore has no more verifiable, demonstrable evidence better than God creating everything.

Argument from ignorance (god of the gaps), your idea is automatically right without being shown to be right.

 

[LuisDantas]

The very existence thread is evidence of nothing else but poor education in Science.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Begging the question is a formal logical fallacy in which the argument proceeds in a circle. Another way to say this is that the conclusion (or one of the sub-conclusions leading to the main conclusion) is taken to be true—perhaps it is stated as one of the explicit premises or perhaps merely assumed.

For example, assume that we are in a debate between an abortion-on-demand proponent and an anti-abortionist. Imagine that the anti-abortionist says, “Since the fetus is a person, she has certain inalienable rights both legally and morally. Denying this is like denying that blacks are people. These kinds of assumptions are indefensible. Accordingly, abortion should be illegal.”

Since the very crux of the argument is whether a fetus is a person, starting the argument with the phrase “Since the fetus is a person…” is begging the question. The argument is wholly unconvincing.

So, what does any of this have to do with evolution? Bear with me.

So far so good.

Standard Christian theology starts with the premise that a supernatural being, called God, created the Heaven and the Earth in a quasi-perfect form. Nothing got old or died. Things, including the human body, did not break down or wear out. Did radioactivity exist under these circumstances? That is highly unlikely. Did cosmic radiation exist and, if so, did it create C14 in the atmosphere? Unknown. The only thing that is certain under this scenario is that the laws of physics were quite different from the ones that we experience on a daily basis.

So you're saying 'Since radioactivity did not exist, dating techniques based on it are flawed?' You should refer to your own first paragraph.

Enter the atheist.

I'm tempted to give him some entrance music. Something villianous.

He wants to establish neo-Darwinism as the one true way and to replace standard Christian theology.

He sounds anti-theistic. Is he anti-theistic? I'm assuming he has a little waxed moustache too. The cad. Why does he wants to replace 'standard Christian theology'? And what IS standard Christian theology?

How does he do so? He starts by either stating or assuming that the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders who couldn’t find their derrieres with both hands. Then the argument proceeds blah…blah…blah…radioactivity. Blah…blah…blah…carbon dating. Blah…blah…blah half-life. Blah…blah…blah…U238. Blah…blah…blah…fission track dating. Therefore, the standard Christian worldview is a bunch of bull**** invented by primitive goat herders.

You realise the irony of ranting against begging the question, and offering up a strawman as evidence, right?

Clearly, the argument is logically flawed—it is a classic example of begging the question. Regardless of the amount of circular logic bandied about by our atheist friends, the argument is thoroughly unconvincing.

I'd be surprised if you actually have atheist friends. I have honest to goodness theistic friends, and I don't think they'd see me as the sort of 2 dimensional character you're portraying here.

I have heard a lot of arguments, but I have yet to hear one against YEC that doesn’t start with the assumption that YEC is wrong.

You have an argument against Islamic Creationism that doesn't start with the assumption that it's wrong?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Evidence? No, I don't care about evidence. Logic and logical arguments? Of course I care about these things. That's why I'm here. I want to know why you don't care about logic or logical arguments.

This follows from... what, exactly?

And you actually think that your eyes are reliable?

My entire point (which you handily - probably willfully) missed, was that if you don't believe that you can trust in your sensory inputs, then there should be absolutely nothing that you feel that you can trust. "Logical arguments" included. How do you know that any input you're receiving isn't some devious optical/audio illusion?! Oh no!!! Based on your beliefs, YOU DON'T. And the only other alternative you left yourself by your own words is that you are insane. Based on the EVIDENCE I have seen so far (that being the immense inanity of your posts) I am inclined to conclude the latter.

And that's great for you, Mr. agnostic. Thanks for pointing that out. I obviously didn't care enough to poke around into your information enough to even see that that was right in front of my face. Sorry about that... well, sort of anyway.

 

[dust1n]

I have heard a lot of arguments, but I have yet to hear one against YEC that doesn’t start with the assumption that YEC is wrong.

• The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years. Rocks 3.4-3.6 billion years in age have been found in southern Africa, western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks but they originated as lava flows and sedimentary rocks. The debris from which the sedimentary rocks formed must have come from even older crustal rocks. The oldest dated minerals (4.0-4.2 billion years) are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia.
• 
  The oldest Moon rocks are from the lunar highlands and were formed when the early lunar crust was partially or entirely molten. These rocks, of which only a few were returned by the Apollo missions, have been dated by two methods at between 4.4-4.5 billion years in age.
  
  
• The majority of the 70 well-dated meteorites have ages of 4.4-4.6 billion years. These meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids and represent some of the most primitive material in the solar system, have been dated by 5 independent radiometric dating methods.
  
  
• The "best" age for the Earth is based on the time required for the lead isotopes in four very old lead ores (galena) to have evolved from the composition of lead at the time the Solar System formed, as recorded in the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. This "model lead age" is 4.54 billion years.
  
  
• The evidence for the antiquity of the Earth and Solar System is consistent with evidence for an even greater age for the Universe and Milky Way Galaxy. a) The age of the Universe can be estimated from the velocity and distance of galaxies as the universe expands. The estimates range from 7 to 20 billion years, depending on whether the expansion is constant or is slowing due to gravitational attraction. b) The age of the Galaxy is estimated to be 14-18 billion years from the rate of evolution of stars in globular clusters, which are thought to be the oldest stars in the Galaxy. The age of the elements in the Galaxy, based on the production ratios of osmium isotopes in supernovae and the change in that ratio over time due to radioactive decay, is 8.6-15.7 billion years. Theoretical considerations indicate that the Galaxy formed within a billion years of the beginning of the Universe. c) Combining the data from a) and b), the "best, i.e., most consistent, age of the universe is estimated to be around 14 billion years.

USGS Geology and Geophysics

No assumption here...

 

[viole]

And you actually think that your eyes are reliable?

I'm agnostic you reading-challenged schlimazel. It says so right next to my name, doesn't it? Open your eyes.

That is not only unpolite, it is also incoherent.

It is irrational to doubt that eyes, or senses in general, are reliable and ask another to use them.

And you are supposed to teach us about logical fallacies?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

I


Is the point you're trying to make here is that you didn't claim that YEC is your belief?

If you don't/didn't make a claim, then we have nothing to discuss, and I apologize for assuming that you did.

On the other hand, if you do believe in YEC, I'd like to know your reasons why? Thanks!

My point is quite simply that YEC relies on a number of questionable assumptions. Nevertheless, neo-Darwinism does too. There is no reason to prefer one over the other.

 

[Zosimus]

At this point, reductio ad absurdum... Logic is firstly a product of common sense and mutual agreement. For us to agree on anything, we must agree on some basic supporting information to have an intelligent dialogue. If two people of competing views cannot see data and agree that it constitutes a fact then that particular evidence is invalid. (And, no it is not invalid just because you won't believe it..) A good judge of whether a piece of evidence might be suitable is to apply the Occam's Razor test to it to see if too many assumptions are being made. This is why Creationists appear to have a coherent story are actually illogical at every turn. Because things have an apparent order doesn't mean they have an absolute order, as that can only be proved with the data they will ignore.

Occam’s Razor, you said? After William of Ockham (Occam in Latin) who famously said, “For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.” Interesting. How's that working for you?

The creationist's argument is essentially that logic doesn't apply to God, and that is easy to refute -- no one, even God can escape from logic because logic is a product of consensus. The ancients were not stupid, but rather had a different set of agreed on principles but since that time those principles have evolved. We're working with a different set of baselines that are a product of two thousand years of additional growth, testing, and thought.

No, that’s not the Creationist’s argument. Try again.

 

[Zosimus]

The very existence thread is evidence of nothing else but poor education in Science.

I’m not familiar with the “existence thread.” Perhaps you could link me to it?

 

[Zosimus]

So far so good.

So you're saying 'Since radioactivity did not exist, dating techniques based on it are flawed?' You should refer to your own first paragraph.

No, what I said was that science typically looks at something and figures, “Since the half-life of C14 is x, and since we see y daughter product, we can calculate that the radioactive decay of this object has been ongoing for 20,000 years.” Yet surely you can see that this calculation flies in the face of the basic assumption of orthodox Christianity, which postulates that some 5,000-6,000 years ago, Adam ate the forbidden fruit, changing the laws of physics from a previous (unknown) form into the current (known) form.

Accordingly, this argument, evidence, data, or whatever you’d like to call it, does not falsify orthodox Christianity because it commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. Orthodox Christianity is not a subject for scientific inquiry as its primary claims cannot be evaluated empirically.

 

[Zosimus]

My entire point (which you handily - probably willfully) missed, was that if you don't believe that you can trust in your sensory inputs, then there should be absolutely nothing that you feel that you can trust. "Logical arguments" included. How do you know that any input you're receiving isn't some devious optical/audio illusion?! Oh no!!! Based on your beliefs, YOU DON'T. And the only other alternative you left yourself by your own words is that you are insane. Based on the EVIDENCE I have seen so far (that being the immense inanity of your posts) I am inclined to conclude the latter.

And that's great for you, Mr. agnostic. Thanks for pointing that out. I obviously didn't care enough to poke around into your information enough to even see that that was right in front of my face. Sorry about that... well, sort of anyway.

Logical arguments are not based on one’s senses. They are based on rational thought.

For example, let’s suppose that I wonder whether truth exists. If I postulate that truth exists, then Q.E.D. But what if I postulate that truth does not exist? Then I am claiming that the phrase “truth does not exist” is a true statement. This is a contradiction. Therefore, truth must exist (proof by contradiction). No sense experience is required to gain this knowledge.

As for the “immense inanity” of my posts, I find it amusing that you think you can conclude that I am insane based on the “EVIDENCE” you see before you. Let’s explore the logic of this argument, shall we?

If Zosimus is insane, he will behave in a certain way. He is behaving in that way. Therefore, he must be insane. Is this a valid logical argument?

No, it is not. It is a textbook example of the “affirming the consequent” logical fallacy.

Using the same logical form, we can conclude many things that you probably do not agree with. For example: if Bill Gates won the lottery, he will be rich. Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, he must have won the lottery.

Or if God created Man, then Man will exist. Man exists; therefore, God must have created Him.

If Area 51 has the wreckage of an alien craft, the government will deny it. The government denies it. Therefore, Area 51 must have the wreckage of an alien craft!

This, of course, is the reason I say that evidence doesn’t interest me. You don’t know what to do with evidence once you get some or why you cannot use it as you do.

 

[Zosimus]

• The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years. Rocks 3.4-3.6 billion years in age have been found in southern Africa, western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks but they originated as lava flows and sedimentary rocks. The debris from which the sedimentary rocks formed must have come from even older crustal rocks. The oldest dated minerals (4.0-4.2 billion years) are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia.
• 
  The oldest Moon rocks are from the lunar highlands and were formed when the early lunar crust was partially or entirely molten. These rocks, of which only a few were returned by the Apollo missions, have been dated by two methods at between 4.4-4.5 billion years in age.
  
  
• The majority of the 70 well-dated meteorites have ages of 4.4-4.6 billion years. These meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids and represent some of the most primitive material in the solar system, have been dated by 5 independent radiometric dating methods.
  
  
• The "best" age for the Earth is based on the time required for the lead isotopes in four very old lead ores (galena) to have evolved from the composition of lead at the time the Solar System formed, as recorded in the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. This "model lead age" is 4.54 billion years.
  
  
• The evidence for the antiquity of the Earth and Solar System is consistent with evidence for an even greater age for the Universe and Milky Way Galaxy. a) The age of the Universe can be estimated from the velocity and distance of galaxies as the universe expands. The estimates range from 7 to 20 billion years, depending on whether the expansion is constant or is slowing due to gravitational attraction. b) The age of the Galaxy is estimated to be 14-18 billion years from the rate of evolution of stars in globular clusters, which are thought to be the oldest stars in the Galaxy. The age of the elements in the Galaxy, based on the production ratios of osmium isotopes in supernovae and the change in that ratio over time due to radioactive decay, is 8.6-15.7 billion years. Theoretical considerations indicate that the Galaxy formed within a billion years of the beginning of the Universe. c) Combining the data from a) and b), the "best, i.e., most consistent, age of the universe is estimated to be around 14 billion years.

USGS Geology and Geophysics

No assumption here...

This is hands down the stupidest argument I've seen in a long time. You should be completely ashamed of yourself for making it. You did not understand the point of my original post in the slightest.

 

[dust1n]

This is hands down the stupidest argument I've seen in a long time. You should be completely ashamed of yourself for making it. You did not understand the point of my original post in the slightest.

"I have heard a lot of arguments, but I have yet to hear one against YEC that doesn’t start with the assumption that YEC is wrong."

This is exactly what you said, I provided just that. The original point of your post was too retarded to address another way. You should be ashamed of yourself for wasting the few KB necessary to hold your post.