Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

In the old USSR you'd be right. It was politically trying to argue that God didn't exist; and it tried to claim Science had a place in disproving theology. The people thought that religion was dividing humanity, so they tried to eliminate it through arguments and political pressures. That was incorrect and was a corruption of the discipline of science. It was sloppy, too and tended to accept any convenient result which supported its political aims. We are not in the USSR.

The alleged circular reasoning that you refer to is a challenge leveled in churches, but evolution is pretty obviously a process that is continuing all the time. Its not about theology at all, not today except in communist countries. They are kind of backwards about that. Evolution is known to happen since it is a process that can be observed, so scientists should not be blamed for noticing it.

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Its a hypothesis that perhaps the first cells came from chemical processes, but evolution is testable independent of how the first cells appear. Abiogenesis is an explanation for how things might have started. That is why it is not a theory but a hypothesis.

One interesting point about the theory of evolution and the Soviet Union. It was rejected under Stalin because evolution depends upon competition and that was seen as contrary to the goals of Marxism. That was they they instituted Lysenkoism in farming. The plants were supposed to know somehow that they were supporting a good Marxist cause and produce more grain etc. as a result. So what occurred due to this? It was the cause of the great famines of Russia.

 

[Charles Philips]

You clearly do not understand logic because you used a a begging the question fallacy just now. Logic is a tool. But improperly used gives wrong answers. Surely you have heard of "GIGO".

What do you mean "came form nothing"? I am not a creationist, I do not believe in creation from nothing. You are doing some heavy projection there.

Everyone uses logic, the question of who's logic is valid and who's is flawed is subject to an individual's scrutiny and ability to discern reality from fantasy. I can't believe that complexed life came into existence without a designer, in other words I don't believe the secular science theory.

 

[Pogo]

There are many conflicting "sciences", so there is no consensus in the scientific community on the unproven mysterious things.

Every type of science agrees on the obvious things, which can easily be proved by performing simple experiments and observing the results. The laws of physics are obeyed by all matter, and all matter behaves according to it's nature. Water boils and freezes at predetermined temperatures, so it's observable and repeatable and that makes it a science fact.

There's no argument for anyone regarding the repeatable and observable scientific facts. The problem has to do with "theories", a theory says "this is probable because what we can observe suggests it" but it is not the same as a repeatable and observable fact. A theory requires faith on the part of the observer or student to believe that it is plausible and possible but it can't claim to be a settled science until it is finally proven.

Science doesn't do proof, that is math and alcohol. In science a theory is as good as it gets, if you have some evidence that you think conflicts with a theory, present it and we can discuss it. If all you want to do is whine about how science conflicts with your interpretation of an old book, we have heard it all before. I suggest you examine the evidence and see if you can harmonize your interpretation with the facts as most theists have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everyone uses logic, the question of who's logic is valid and who's is flawed is subject to an individual's scrutiny and ability to discern reality from fantasy. I can't believe that complexed life came into existence without a designer, in other words I don't believe the secular science theory.

Well, some of us use logic. You are using an argument from incredulity. That is a logical fallacy. Science is evidence based. There is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. Not enough to elevate it from hypothetical status, yet. But there is no scientific evidence for the various creation myths. And that is largely due to the cowardice and incompetence of creation "scientists".

We really should go over the basics of science.

 

[Pogo]

Everyone uses logic, the question of who's logic is valid and who's is flawed is subject to an individual's scrutiny and ability to discern reality from fantasy. I can't believe that complexed life came into existence without a designer, in other words I don't believe the secular science theory.

Beliefs are not logic, if anything they are the antithesis.
Analysis of validity of arguments is not individual, but based on principles of logic which require mutual agreement to be useful.
Truth values of premises are based on evidence and not beliefs.

 

[Charles Philips]

Please be more specific in your charges. I have never seen "circular reasoning" used by scientists. I have seen creationists use strawman arguments.

Or, you could ask questions.

For example we know that abiogenesis happened on the Earth. The question is was it natural or was it by magic. I lean towards natural.

Circular Reasoning requires it's victims to accept an unproven fantasy as fact.

 

[Charles Philips]

You could not be more wrong. A theory is based upon evidence. It has to be able to explain all of the evidence of a particular field of science. It has to be falsifiable, that means that there must be reasonable tests that could possibly show it to be wrong. The theory of evolution has been tested millions of time and keeps passing those tests.

You are conflating the lay definition of a theory with the scientific one. In the sciences a scientific theory is at the top of the hierarchy. If anything a theory outranks laws. In the history of science no theory has ever become a law, but who would want that? That would be a demotion. I know of at least one law that was supplanted by a scientific theory, and it is a big one.

It is rather clear that you do not have a very extensive knowledge of the sciences. Perhaps your time would be better spent asking questions and trying to learn.

Now that perfectly defines 'Circular Reasoning'. It confirms that it's not open to logic or reason or scrutiny of any kind. It's only subject to itself, and it's a closed circuit. That's like asking the Mafia to investigate the Mafia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Circular Reasoning requires it's victims to accept an unproven fantasy as fact.

Oh my. Okay, you definitely need some scientific education. Like or not evolution is a fact. There is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for gravity. How much evidence do you need?

Meanwhile there is no reliable evidence for your personal myths. So it is more than a bit hypocritical for you to accuse others of "circular reasoning".

Would you like to learn what is and what is not evidence in the sciences? It is an easy concept to understand.

 

[Pogo]

Circular Reasoning requires it's victims to accept an unproven fantasy as fact.

Yes, assuming an unevidenced god is the answer to any unknown is circular reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that perfectly defines 'Circular Reasoning'. It confirms that it's not open to logic or reason or scrutiny of any kind. It's only subject to itself, and it's a closed circuit. That's like asking the Mafia to investigate the Mafia

No, not at all. Scientists are far more independent than you realize. Now please, back off of the false accusations of others. As a Christian you should know that is breaking the Ninth Commandment.

Once again, a theory or hypothesis has to be testable and if it is not one's fellow scientists will point it out very very quickly. There is no conspiracy among scientists. "Herding cats" probably arose by someone trying to get scientists to agree to only one viewpoint.

 

[Charles Philips]

In the old USSR you'd be right. It was politically trying to argue that God didn't exist; and it tried to claim Science had a place in disproving theology. The people thought that religion was dividing humanity, so they tried to eliminate it through arguments and political pressures. That was incorrect and was a corruption of the discipline of science. It was sloppy, too and tended to accept any convenient result which supported its political aims. We are not in the USSR.

The alleged circular reasoning that you refer to is a challenge leveled in churches, but evolution is pretty obviously a process that is continuing all the time. Its not about theology at all, not today except in communist countries. They are kind of backwards about that. Evolution is known to happen since it is a process that can be observed, so scientists should not be blamed for noticing it.

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Its a hypothesis that perhaps the first cells came from chemical processes, but evolution is testable independent of how the first cells appear. Abiogenesis is an explanation for how things might have started. That is why it is not a theory but a hypothesis.

I think you have confused the theory of evolution, with adaptation which is always taking place in all living things. If we take a farm pig and let it lose in the cold wilderness, it will quickly adapt by growing long hair and bigger tusks. This is a natural reaction by a living organism to it's environment.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with adaptation to ones environment. The theory of evolution asserts that, one species evolves into another species. Creationist reject that theory because no evidence has ever been presented to support that theory.

Below is a creationist asking professors, if any evidence exist to support the theory of evolution. I think their responses speak volumes abut the theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you have confused the theory of evolution, with adaptation which is always taking place in all living things. If we take a farm pig and let it lose in the cold wilderness, it will quickly adapt by growing long hair and bigger tusks. This is a natural reaction by a living organism to it's environment.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with adaptation to ones environment. The theory of evolution asserts that, one species evolves into another species. Creationist reject that theory because no evidence has ever been presented to support that theory.

Below is a creationist asking professors, if any evidence exist to support the theory of evolution. I think their responses speak volumes abut the theory.

When you use lying sources all you get is lies.

Why are you so afraid to learn anything? All you have are false accusations. A Christian really should know better.

And holy Crap! You used not only a liar, but a an idiot as well. It is a close contest between Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind as to which one is more idiotic. The both lie, but Kent wins that contest. I would have to say that Comfort wins the idiot contest. After all he brought us the crocoduck.

 

[Charles Philips]

Incorrect. The Big Bang cause is unknown. That does not mean that is has no cause, but you know what? It might not have one.

And no, the theory of evolution is based quite often on causes. And I doubt if you even understand what is and what is not evidence. That is a concept that you can easily understand if you want to.

My idea of evidence is, "material evidence", which is very different to presenting subjective circular reasoning based evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My idea of evidence is, "material evidence", which is very different to presenting subjective circular reasoning based evidence.

Lies are not evidence. And scientific evidence is regarded as the most reliable evidence in the world today.

Here is what you cannot seem to understand. Real scientists are forced to be honest. One must put their ideas into the form of a testable hypothesis. If one does not do that one just has pseudoscience. Junk science where one cherry picks observations. That is not allowed in the sciences. And when one puts ones idea into the form of a testable hypothesis it can usually be tested by more than just the test that he picks out himself. Others can see how different tests apply and will try to refute his work. That is what scientists do. There are two ways to get famous. Come up with your own new idea that is well supported by evidence or refute the idea of another scientist that was thought to be well supported.

Trust me, real scientists have tried countless times to refute evolution and none ever has. And no creation "scientist" has even come close.

If you understood the basics of science even you would understand this. But like all long term creationists you appear to know how dangerous reality is to your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And since all that I have been getting are videos here is one where Ray Comfort wins a prestigious award:

 

[Charles Philips]

Science doesn't do proof, that is math and alcohol. In science a theory is as good as it gets, if you have some evidence that you think conflicts with a theory, present it and we can discuss it. If all you want to do is whine about how science conflicts with your interpretation of an old book, we have heard it all before. I suggest you examine the evidence and see if you can harmonize your interpretation with the facts as most theists have.

There's no point in exhibiting items of evidence, to those who are not qualified to examine and evaluate ancient forensic evidence. It would be like showing am encrypted half page long Microsoft Excel program, to an Aborigine from 500 years ago and expecting him to evaluate it and write a peer paper to correctly explain it's function.

We have highly qualified historians and associated experts, who have revealed their findings but one needs to be educated in the field in order to critically evaluate their findings. It's not wise to dismiss something based on ones emotions or feelings.

 

[McBell]

It's the theory of the big bang and theory of evolution, which both claim to have no cause. Those of us who reject those theories, do so because we only believe in evidence based, proven facts. A theory is just an unproven hypothesis and that's unacceptable to those of us who only believe in evidence based, documented facts

Please define "evidence"

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's no point in exhibiting items of evidence, to those who are not qualified to examine and evaluate ancient forensic evidence. It would be like showing am encrypted half page long Microsoft Excel program, to an Aborigine from 500 years ago and expecting him to evaluate it and write a peer paper to correctly explain it's function.

We have highly qualified historians and associated experts, who have revealed their findings but one needs to be educated in the field in order to critically evaluate their findings. It's not wise to dismiss something based on ones emotions or feelings.

I doubt if you do. If anyone is guilty of circular reasoning it has always been apologists. There are similar rules of evidence in anthropology and history as there are in the sciences. You almost surely have people that are guilty of the cardinal sin of have a preset answer. That is not allowed in the sciences. In the sciences one has to follow the evidence wherever it goes. If it supports the Bible then scientists would have to point it out. if it refutes Genesis they have the same duty.

 

[Charles Philips]

Lies are not evidence. And scientific evidence is regarded as the most reliable evidence in the world today.

Here is what you cannot seem to understand. Real scientists are forced to be honest. One must put their ideas into the form of a testable hypothesis. If one does not do that one just has pseudoscience. Junk science where one cherry picks observations. That is not allowed in the sciences. And when one puts ones idea into the form of a testable hypothesis it can usually be tested by more than just the test that he picks out himself. Others can see how different tests apply and will try to refute his work. That is what scientists do. There are two ways to get famous. Come up with your own new idea that is well supported by evidence or refute the idea of another scientist that was thought to be well supported.

Trust me, real scientists have tried countless times to refute evolution and none ever has. And no creation "scientist" has even come close.

If you understood the basics of science even you would understand this. But like all long term creationists you appear to know how dangerous reality is to your beliefs.

All of that is based on circular reasoning and mainstream science is based on a baseless theory, where no evidence exists to support it. It just requires the victim to blindly swallow what they are fed.

I'm the kind of person who requires material evidence, I never embrace someone's private fantasy as fact.

Nobody ever recorded or produced a single shred of evidence to support the idea of evolution, it's just and desperate attempt to fill in the blanks on their paper, but it has nothing to do with actual proven fact.

 

[McBell]

My idea of evidence is, "material evidence", which is very different to presenting subjective circular reasoning based evidence.

Ray Comfort?
Seriously?