How best to argue against creationists

[Man of Faith]

I just posted a new blog entry about intelligent design. Let me know what you think. Do you agree or disagree? Reptoavian's Blog: Intelligent Design

Pretty good post, I see some problems with it. One is the assumption that the ToE is all science and not mixed with some Philosophy. In the entry the statement is made that theories explain observed phenomenon. There are things in the Toe which aren't observable. I would be satisfied if they took the parts of the ToE that are philosophy and put them up against ID in the philosophy class. They can leave the observable parts in the science class.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Pretty good post, I see some problems with it. One is the assumption that the ToE is all science and not mixed with some Philosophy. In the entry the statement is made that theories explain observed phenomenon. There are things in the Toe which aren't observable. I would be satisfied if they took the parts of the ToE that are philosophy and put them up against ID in the philosophy class. They can leave the observable parts in the science class.

I challenge you to post one example of the accepted Theory of Evolution that is philosophical.
Just one.

 

[Man of Faith]

I challenge you to post one example of the accepted Theory of Evolution that is philosophical.
Just one.

When the question is asked, why can't microevolution lead to macroevolution, that is a philosophical question which shows the philosophical part of evolution.

 

[Gunfingers]

When the question is asked, why can't microevolution lead to macroevolution, that is a philosophical question which shows the philosophical part of evolution.

Asking you to back up your claims with evidence is philosophy? Whoa.

 

[Man of Faith]

Asking you to back up your claims with evidence is philosophy? Whoa.

Evolutionists claim that microevolution leads to macroevolution over time and the proof they provide is to try to make creationists prove that it can't happen with a question of "why can't it". That is philoslophical not evidential.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Evolutionists claim that microevolution leads to macroevolution over time and the proof they provide is to try to make creationists prove that it can't happen with a question of "why can't it". That is philoslophical not evidential.

Correction, creationists claim that microevolution cannot lead to macroeevolution without ever providing a reason why and despite the fact that we've actually observed it in nature and in the lab. Asking "why can't it?" isn't a philosophical question. It's a request for the creationist to back up their claim with more than just assertion.

 

[Gunfingers]

Evolutionists claim that microevolution leads to macroevolution over time and the proof they provide is to try to make creationists prove that it can't happen with a question of "why can't it". That is philoslophical not evidential.

To put your words in another form, you're basically saying that if i start at one and count by ones and i'll get to 10 through "microcounting" but never reach 100 because that would require "macrocounting". All we're asking is why i can't count to 100.

I can prove that i can count to 100, and i can prove that evolution happens on large scale, but you're telling me both of these are impossible. I feel pretty justified in asking you to submit a counterproof.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I challenge you to post one example of the accepted Theory of Evolution that is philosophical.
Just one.

When the question is asked, why can't microevolution lead to macroevolution, that is a philosophical question which shows the philosophical part of evolution.

Not only have you failed in your understanding of philosophy, the question you ask, "why can't microevolution lead to macroevolution", is not an example of the accepted Theory of Evolution.

First, lets get the actual scientific terms correctly defined.

Macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch". Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

(Source)

Second, while there may be philosophical debate among scientists concerning whether or not Macroevolution and Microevolution are reductionist or non-reductionist, neither of these tenets are central to the actual Theory of Evolution. Nor will either one be until it moves beyond the simple philosophical questions, and into empirical data. As actual Micro and Macro evolution have done already.

 

[Autodidact]

Pretty good post, I see some problems with it. One is the assumption that the ToE is all science and not mixed with some Philosophy.

Really, how would you know, since you have no idea what it says?

Such as what?

Why would an entry about Intelligent Design say anything at all about evolution?

In the entry the statement is made that theories explain observed phenomenon. There are things in the Toe which aren't observable.

It explains observed phenomena. You know, like you just said.

I would be satisfied if they took the parts of the ToE that are philosophy and put them up against ID in the philosophy class. They can leave the observable parts in the science class.

That would be the whole thing, so we're good then.

 

[Autodidact]

When the question is asked, why can't microevolution lead to macroevolution, that is a philosophical question which shows the philosophical part of evolution.

1. That's not a question that ToE asks.
2. Do you consider "Why can't 1 + 1 + 1 = 3" to be a philosophical question?

 

[fantome profane]

When the question is asked, why can't microevolution lead to macroevolution, that is a philosophical question which shows the philosophical part of evolution.

You have demonstrated many times on this board that you do not understand what science is. This post is evidence that you don’t understand what philosophy is either.

 

[Autodidact]

Evolutionists claim that microevolution leads to macroevolution over time and the proof they provide is to try to make creationists prove that it can't happen with a question of "why can't it". That is philoslophical not evidential.

How would you know, since you refuse to examine the evidence? You wouldn't be less than honest would you? If you don't look at the evidence, how do you know whether it's sufficient or not?

Evolution doesn't ask a creationist to prove anything. Creationism is not a scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific theory thoroughly grounded in evidence, evidence and nothing but evidence.

But I guess as long as you refuse to look at it, you can keep pretending it doesn't exist.

What you're talking about is just the accepted concept that someone who makes an assertion on an internet website should also support that assertion. Do you take issue with that custom?

 

[Autodidact]

btw, MoF, don't you actually agree with ToE that new species do evolve? That is, that macro-evolution happens? Your only disagreement is with how many common ancestors there are, isn't that correct?

 

[McBell]

You have demonstrated many times on this board that you do not understand what science is. This post is evidence that you don’t understand what philosophy is either.

Well...
At least he is consistent....:yes:

 

[Danmac]

Correction, creationists claim that microevolution cannot lead to macroeevolution without ever providing a reason why and despite the fact that we've actually observed it in nature and in the lab. Asking "why can't it?" isn't a philosophical question. It's a request for the creationist to back up their claim with more than just assertion.

We have observed microevolution, but we have never observed macroevolution. Lassie may microevolve and in time produce peanut, but Lassie has never been observed turning into flipper. That is the difference.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

We have observed microevolution, but we have never observed macroevolution. Lassie may microevolve and in time produce peanut, but Lassie has never been observed turning into flipper. That is the difference.

CB901: No Macroevolution

CB910: New species

 

[Autodidact]

We have observed microevolution, but we have never observed macroevolution. Lassie may microevolve and in time produce peanut, but Lassie has never been observed turning into flipper. That is the difference.

For the nine millionth time, you don't have to directly observe something for science to be able to conclude it. Science is based on (wait for it)...(here it comes)...(this may sound familiar)...

EVIDENCE.

We use science to draw conclusions from what we do observe. If science was confined to what we observe, then until 1950 the earth would have been flat.

And for the ten millionth time, if Lassie turned into Flipper, ToE would be falsified.

So, once again, do you not KNOW what ToE says, or do you deliberately make up lies about it?

 

[Autodidact]

We have observed microevolution, but we have never observed macroevolution. Lassie may microevolve and in time produce peanut, but Lassie has never been observed turning into flipper. That is the difference.

I'm still confused. Don't you agree that new species evolve? So you're arguing that you're wrong? Is that your point?

 

[Man of Faith]

Correction, creationists claim that microevolution cannot lead to macroeevolution without ever providing a reason why and despite the fact that we've actually observed it in nature and in the lab. Asking "why can't it?" isn't a philosophical question. It's a request for the creationist to back up their claim with more than just assertion.

Either way the question is philosophical not evidential. It is not evidence of anything. If the evidence was there and observable one wouldn't have to ask "why can't it", one could say "here it is". Can you observe frog to prince evolution? Saying that macroevolution is observable is equivocating on what is a new form of creature.

 

[Man of Faith]

To put your words in another form, you're basically saying that if i start at one and count by ones and i'll get to 10 through "microcounting" but never reach 100 because that would require "macrocounting". All we're asking is why i can't count to 100.

I can prove that i can count to 100, and i can prove that evolution happens on large scale, but you're telling me both of these are impossible. I feel pretty justified in asking you to submit a counterproof.

This is another philosophical argument, not evidential.