Is providing data to creationists a waste of time?

[Jose Fly]

I send the creationist to Google as a show of good faith. Find a few articles on science sites, read them, and return with any questions or issues you wish to discuss. Here's a relatively recent example of that: The Big Bang and Evolution

I'll let you guess how many times that has happened, or if it happened in that case.

Still, I will answer some of those questions, but with no expectation that the creationist will benefit or even read the answer. I benefit from the research and from crafting the answer, and hopefully, a few others who don't think by faith will benefit as well.

But if your purpose is to go fetch evidence for creationists, well, why bother? They didn't get to their present position using evidence, generally have little experience evaluating it or employing critical thinking skills, and can't be budged from a faith based position by evidence.

You are correct: It's a pretense that they are otherwise, or that they share our values about critical thought applied to evidence.. You fetch it, and they reject it out of hand using words like "supposition" and "never been observed."

Enough of that. Make them jump the first hurdle as a sign of sincerity.

Very well put and I agree 100%.

 

[Jose Fly]

I just did that in response to a post about "kinds" and Darwin's finches on another thread. I am now in a position to tell you that finches comprise a biological family with three suborders and man dozens of genera and species. Interested?

Virtually everything I know about human evolution comes from this process, and all within the last three years. The creationists questions were the impetus, but I never expected them to get anything out of it. I do it for me and those that are like me. I do it for you, and you do it for me. The creationists don't generally care about such things.

That justification makes total sense. If in looking up info, reading it, and summarizing it in a post to a creationist you end up learning about the subject yourself, then the process is entirely justified.

I guess I'm speaking from a position of having done this for so long, it's not very often I get to do what you describe. As I noted in the "Do Creationists Have Anything New" thread, creationists haven't come up with any real new arguments, so the rebuttals to them have become sort of routine for me.

 

[gnostic]

Perhaps it is a waste of time.

For those that who are uneducated or ignorant, it is better to provide them with the correct information. Whether they will accept the correction or advice, the choices are up to them.

You know the saying: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force the horse to drink it.

But as to deception, deliberate misrepresentation or misinformation shouldn't go unchallenged; I don't think remaining silence or ignoring them will help.

The problem to speak up or challenge them is up to you.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

One commonality among most of the creationists in this forum is they like to ask for data and evidence for the conclusions of evolutionary biology. If those of us on the science side say something about a specific fossil sequence, genetics, or even common descent as a whole, it’s not unusual for a creationist to respond with something like “Where’s the data”, “Show me the evidence”, or “Where’s the proof”.

The typical response is for several science advocates to provide links to the data, and write up explanations for how it supports the conclusion(s). Now, many of these explanations are extremely well done and thorough. But the problem is, they’re largely a waste of time. I’ll use a recent example to illustrate why…..

In the "Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism" thread, I posted a “question for creationists” from Kathleen Hunt about the horse fossil record. Basically she asked for creationists’ explanation for the fossil data, and wondered if they believe God created all the species independently, while destroying their very similar kin. Deeje responded to that post by asking to for the data behind the horse fossil sequence. Then, ImmortalFlame responded by posting a link to the horse fossil wiki page. And how did Deeje respond? Did she look it over and return with informed comments and questions? Of course not. She ignored it and immediately jumped topics and started ranting about the “Lucy” specimen.

But wait…..didn’t anyone wonder why she didn’t just look up the information herself? All she had to do was Google “horse fossil record” and she would have found all sorts of resources that walked through the topic and supporting data. If she wanted layperson type info, she could have started with the same wiki page ImmortalFlame gave her. Then if she wanted more info on specific specimens, she could have gone to the wiki pages for each specimen. And if she wanted the more detailed scientific coverage of each specimen, all she had to do was go to Google Scholar and search for each specimen’s name.

So, it’s trivially easy to get the information these creationists keep demanding, which leads to an obvious question: If the creationists are truly interested in the data, why don’t they look it up and read through it themselves? Why do they have to ask us to find it for them?

The answer is obvious….they’re not at all interested. They’re not asking in good faith. They’re posing them as “stump the evolutionist” challenges, not questions, because they believe the data doesn’t exist. So when we show it to them, they ignore it and just move on to another one, as Deeje did yesterday.

In sum, my suggestion is to approach these situations a bit differently. When a creationist asks for you to “show the data”, we should start by asking if them why they want to see it. Are they really interested? Will they even look at it? Are they at all open to the possibility that the data exists?

And if they answer in the affirmative to those questions, have them commit to what we would expect the data to be if the evolutionary framework is accurate. Returning to the horse example, ask something like “Do you agree that if equids are the result of millions of years of evolutionary change, we would expect to see in the fossil record a pattern of change within and between species, with specimens exhibiting more modern-type traits as we move forward in time?” Only after they’ve agreed to all that should we be taking the time to look up, cite, and explain the data to them.

I love the title I find it so funny; like a big nothing... that becomes something?
Dadaism ....
Also another reason why I don't agree with you; but that's just me so.

 

[Zosimus]

One commonality among most of the creationists in this forum is they like to ask for data and evidence for the conclusions of evolutionary biology. If those of us on the science side say something about a specific fossil sequence, genetics, or even common descent as a whole, it’s not unusual for a creationist to respond with something like “Where’s the data”, “Show me the evidence”, or “Where’s the proof”.

The typical response is for several science advocates to provide links to the data, and write up explanations for how it supports the conclusion(s). Now, many of these explanations are extremely well done and thorough. But the problem is, they’re largely a waste of time. I’ll use a recent example to illustrate why…..

In the "Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism" thread, I posted a “question for creationists” from Kathleen Hunt about the horse fossil record. Basically she asked for creationists’ explanation for the fossil data, and wondered if they believe God created all the species independently, while destroying their very similar kin. Deeje responded to that post by asking to for the data behind the horse fossil sequence. Then, ImmortalFlame responded by posting a link to the horse fossil wiki page. And how did Deeje respond? Did she look it over and return with informed comments and questions? Of course not. She ignored it and immediately jumped topics and started ranting about the “Lucy” specimen.

But wait…..didn’t anyone wonder why she didn’t just look up the information herself? All she had to do was Google “horse fossil record” and she would have found all sorts of resources that walked through the topic and supporting data. If she wanted layperson type info, she could have started with the same wiki page ImmortalFlame gave her. Then if she wanted more info on specific specimens, she could have gone to the wiki pages for each specimen. And if she wanted the more detailed scientific coverage of each specimen, all she had to do was go to Google Scholar and search for each specimen’s name.

So, it’s trivially easy to get the information these creationists keep demanding, which leads to an obvious question: If the creationists are truly interested in the data, why don’t they look it up and read through it themselves? Why do they have to ask us to find it for them?

The answer is obvious….they’re not at all interested. They’re not asking in good faith. They’re posing them as “stump the evolutionist” challenges, not questions, because they believe the data doesn’t exist. So when we show it to them, they ignore it and just move on to another one, as Deeje did yesterday.

In sum, my suggestion is to approach these situations a bit differently. When a creationist asks for you to “show the data”, we should start by asking if them why they want to see it. Are they really interested? Will they even look at it? Are they at all open to the possibility that the data exists?

And if they answer in the affirmative to those questions, have them commit to what we would expect the data to be if the evolutionary framework is accurate. Returning to the horse example, ask something like “Do you agree that if equids are the result of millions of years of evolutionary change, we would expect to see in the fossil record a pattern of change within and between species, with specimens exhibiting more modern-type traits as we move forward in time?” Only after they’ve agreed to all that should we be taking the time to look up, cite, and explain the data to them.

Well, yes, it certainly is surprising considering that the data are totally irrelevant to the discussion although neither they nor you seem to realize that. I suspect that it's some kind of a stalling tactic or a knee-jerk response. They sense that you're wrong, but you're probably talking about a subject that they know little or nothing about and they don't know how to refute you. After all, they are more concerned with defending their faith from attacks than arguing the subtleties of some obscure finding that probably isn't right anyway and will be refuted in a few years if anyone bothers to redo the experiment.

I prefer to refer people to Where’s The Evidence? | Issue 78 | Philosophy Now or to personally argue the absurdity of your position. No amount of "supporting" evidence can or will make any difference in your position because there's no such thing as supporting evidence. The best you can say about evidence is that it's neutral to the topic at hand.

Evolution is, of course, just a theory and to the extent to which it is a falsifiable theory, it will eventually be falsified. Thousands of years from now children will study the absurd beliefs of our age and think "How could people be so stupid as to believe such nonsense" in the same way that modern school children wonder how the Greeks could possibly believe all the crap they did. It's not that the Greeks were stupid—far from it. It's just that so far there is no known method of obtaining knowledge. Sure, we have lots of conjecture, and I'm sure you all take it on faith that science is headed in the right direction at least and will eventually get closer and closer to the Holy Grail of irrefutable scientific truth. However, if history tells us anything, it is that we have lots to learn.

If you haven't already, I suggest that you take up chess. When you realize how lamely you play and how you simply cannot see that your queen is exposed to capture, even though she is right in front of your eyes, you develop a certain level of humility that will benefit you for the rest of your life.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, yes, it certainly is surprising considering that the data are totally irrelevant to the discussion although neither they nor you seem to realize that.

Of course I realize it. That's why you rarely see me go through the bother of presenting data to creationists, and it's why I started this thread.

I suspect that it's some kind of a stalling tactic or a knee-jerk response. They sense that you're wrong, but you're probably talking about a subject that they know little or nothing about and they don't know how to refute you. After all, they are more concerned with defending their faith from attacks than arguing the subtleties of some obscure finding that probably isn't right anyway and will be refuted in a few years if anyone bothers to redo the experiment.

I prefer to refer people to Where’s The Evidence? | Issue 78 | Philosophy Now or to personally argue the absurdity of your position. No amount of "supporting" evidence can or will make any difference in your position because there's no such thing as supporting evidence. The best you can say about evidence is that it's neutral to the topic at hand.

I'm not sure what you're on about here. You seem to be under the impression that the subject is atheism vs. theism, which isn't the case.

Evolution is, of course, just a theory

You've repeated one of the more common (and ignorant) talking points from creationists. Rather than explain what "theory" means in science for the 1,000th time....

Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia

and to the extent to which it is a falsifiable theory, it will eventually be falsified. Thousands of years from now children will study the absurd beliefs of our age and think "How could people be so stupid as to believe such nonsense" in the same way that modern school children wonder how the Greeks could possibly believe all the crap they did. It's not that the Greeks were stupid—far from it. It's just that so far there is no known method of obtaining knowledge. Sure, we have lots of conjecture, and I'm sure you all take it on faith that science is headed in the right direction at least and will eventually get closer and closer to the Holy Grail of irrefutable scientific truth. However, if history tells us anything, it is that we have lots to learn.

If you haven't already, I suggest that you take up chess. When you realize how lamely you play and how you simply cannot see that your queen is exposed to capture, even though she is right in front of your eyes, you develop a certain level of humility that will benefit you for the rest of your life.

Thanks for your input.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well, yes, it certainly is surprising considering that the data are totally irrelevant to the discussion although neither they nor you seem to realize that. I suspect that it's some kind of a stalling tactic or a knee-jerk response. They sense that you're wrong, but you're probably talking about a subject that they know little or nothing about and they don't know how to refute you. After all, they are more concerned with defending their faith from attacks than arguing the subtleties of some obscure finding that probably isn't right anyway and will be refuted in a few years if anyone bothers to redo the experiment.

I prefer to refer people to Where’s The Evidence? | Issue 78 | Philosophy Now or to personally argue the absurdity of your position. No amount of "supporting" evidence can or will make any difference in your position because there's no such thing as supporting evidence. The best you can say about evidence is that it's neutral to the topic at hand.

Evolution is, of course, just a theory and to the extent to which it is a falsifiable theory, it will eventually be falsified. Thousands of years from now children will study the absurd beliefs of our age and think "How could people be so stupid as to believe such nonsense" in the same way that modern school children wonder how the Greeks could possibly believe all the crap they did. It's not that the Greeks were stupid—far from it. It's just that so far there is no known method of obtaining knowledge. Sure, we have lots of conjecture, and I'm sure you all take it on faith that science is headed in the right direction at least and will eventually get closer and closer to the Holy Grail of irrefutable scientific truth. However, if history tells us anything, it is that we have lots to learn.

If you haven't already, I suggest that you take up chess. When you realize how lamely you play and how you simply cannot see that your queen is exposed to capture, even though she is right in front of your eyes, you develop a certain level of humility that will benefit you for the rest of your life.

Here's a friendly tip: When discussing science with the scientifically literate, never say, "[Evolution]'s only a theory." Knowing better than to write that is pretty much a litmus test for scientific competence. I'm not familiar with you or your beliefs, but I assure that you lost all credibility at that point.

• "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered." - Stephen Jay Gould

• "Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge." –Wiki

Do yourself a favor and learn that. You'll want to defend your ethos, which is your credibility (more or less):

• "In the study of argumentation, ethos refers to how the writer or speaker is perceived by his audience. It's a combination of perceptions such as, Is he knowledgeable about that which speaks? Is he fair? Does he have any unstated purpose? Is he polite? Can he be trusted? - in short, his character, credibility, and motivations. This is all separate from the argument or message itself (logos)."

That was not snark. That was a sincere effort to be constructive and helpful to you.

And here's your chance to prove the central thesis of the thread wrong. You've just been given evidence. Prove that it wasn't an useless gesture of potential benefit only to non-creationists reading along. Show them that you're an evidence based thinker, and that evidence can actually modify your position or argument. What are your feelings now about a comment like, "Evolution is only a theory"?

Digression:

Also, I looked at your link. I didn't see the relevance to the discussion about the value of providing evidence to creationists on demand. Atheists don't need evidence.

The article was flawed in several ways apart from the author's assumption that atheists need evidence to support their atheism. He doesn't seem to know what an atheist is (very few of us claim gods cannot or do not exist), he's confused about burden of proof (it obviously rests only with the person that wants to be believed), he's confused about any relevance of proving a negative to justify atheism (what are we trying to prove as atheists or about atheism?), he misunderstands Occam's Razor and its use (it's used to rank hypotheses, not eliminate them), and almost nobody is making the argument that absence of evidence is evidence of absence since it is obviously wrong, although arguing that the absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence is a valid position..

Atheism is analogous to aleprchaunism and avampirism. No evidence is needed to hold those positions, they are not positive claims about the nonexistence or impossibility of leprechauns and vampires, no negative need be proved, there is no burden of proof, etc..

How did this guy get into a philosophy magazine that otherwise looks respectable? This smacks of religious apologetics in its methods.

Oh, and evolution is here to stay. If the theory were falsified today, there is only one idea that could replace it: A deceptive intelligent designer created the earth and its contents including the geological column and the nested morphological (taxonomical, embryologic), biochemical, and genetic hierarchies to make it look like evolution had occurred.

Can you think of a different explanation than evolution or a deceptive intelligent designer trying to make it look like we had evolved from a common ancestral form over deep time?

Have you considered that if you ever succeed in falsifying Darwin's theory, you'll have a new problem to contend with: The intelligent designer you uncovered cannot be the Christian god, who we are told loves us and wants us to know Him to the extent that he has written a book to us that contradicts the theory of evolution, performed miracles, and appeared on earth all so that we would know among other things that He made the "kinds" from nothing.

Is that god a deceiver?

 

[Zosimus]

Of course I realize it. That's why you rarely see me go through the bother of presenting data to creationists, and it's why I started this thread.

All right. It's obvious that I need to dumb it down for you. I could probably explain it till I'm blue in the face and you still wouldn't get it, but let's give it a go.

Imagine that you have some Evangelistic Bible Thumper guy who wants to prove that the Bible is true and thereby that the world was created in 6 days less than 6,000 years ago. To do so, he posts evidence that the Bible is true in other areas with such evidence as archaeological digs. Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that he has 100,000 pieces of archaeological evidence that coincide perfectly with the Bible. Are you convinced to become a YEC?

I imagine that the answer is no. Just because the Bible is true about other things doesn't mean that the Bible must be 100% true in all things. In short, the data are irrelevant to his claim.

Why is this? Well, it's because he's employing a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. His logical pattern is as follows:

If the Bible is 100% true then archaeological finds will match with what the Bible says.
Archaeological finds match the Bible.
Therefore, the Bible is 100% true.

This logical pattern is 100% fallacious. Using it we could prove almost anything. For example:

If Bill Gates owns a diamond mine, he will be rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns a diamond mine.

So far, I imagine, you are with me. However, as soon as you try to do something, you immediately fall into the same logical trap that our hypothetical Bible Thumper guy does. Here's your standard logic pattern:

If humans and chimps share a common ancestor, they will have similar DNA.
They have similar DNA.
Therefore, they share a common ancestor.

Now suddenly all of your logic goes right the window. Because the conclusion is one you agree with, suddenly you find no fault with the logic. "Yes, that's right!" you all proclaim, nodding your heads in agreement. "Why, if Christians only understood the evidence, they'd all be Darwinists as we are. It's only logical."

Sorry. There's nothing logical about science. That's why I said that the data are irrelevant. You took it to mean that I agreed with you. What I meant is that evidentialism is false and demonstrably so. Then I posted an article that contains all the reasons that evidentialism is false, and I'm sure that some of you will say "I don't get it. He seems to be talking about atheism. That's out of scope."

I'm not sure what you're on about here. You seem to be under the impression that the subject is atheism vs. theism, which isn't the case.

I think I glimpsed this, so my prediction was probably tainted by this. At any rate, the point is that Darwinists have a love-hate relationship with evidence. They demand evidence of their opponents but provide none of their own. They point out that any evidence provided by their opponents is unconvincing, but they cannot see that their own evidence is equally unconvincing. Nothing less than an infinite quantity of data could ever prove a scientific theory true. So in the end everything in science is just a theory.

You've repeated one of the more common (and ignorant) talking points from creationists. Rather than explain what "theory" means in science for the 1,000th time....

Well, it's the truth. You have a theory. You have some evidence that you think supports the theory. You don't realize that this is a logical impossibility. Then you make a Wikipedia article about it and expect me to be impressed. Sorry.

 

[Jose Fly]

All right. It's obvious that I need to dumb it down for you. I could probably explain it till I'm blue in the face and you still wouldn't get it, but let's give it a go.

Oh brother.....

So far, I imagine, you are with me. However, as soon as you try to do something, you immediately fall into the same logical trap that our hypothetical Bible Thumper guy does. Here's your standard logic pattern:

If humans and chimps share a common ancestor, they will have similar DNA.
They have similar DNA.
Therefore, they share a common ancestor.

Now suddenly all of your logic goes right the window.

That would be meaningful if I had ever presented such an argument.

Because the conclusion is one you agree with, suddenly you find no fault with the logic. "Yes, that's right!" you all proclaim, nodding your heads in agreement. "Why, if Christians only understood the evidence, they'd all be Darwinists as we are. It's only logical."

Again, if you ever see me expressing that sort of view, let me know.

Sorry. There's nothing logical about science. That's why I said that the data are irrelevant. You took it to mean that I agreed with you. What I meant is that evidentialism is false and demonstrably so. Then I posted an article that contains all the reasons that evidentialism is false, and I'm sure that some of you will say "I don't get it. He seems to be talking about atheism. That's out of scope."

Again, thanks for your input.

At any rate, the point is that Darwinists have a love-hate relationship with evidence. They demand evidence of their opponents but provide none of their own.

Um.....if you're referring to the science advocates here as "Darwinists" then you couldn't be more wrong. Sayak for example has done an exemplary job of outlining a great deal of evidence in multiple threads.

Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

How New Genes Arise (yes they do)

They point out that any evidence provided by their opponents is unconvincing, but they cannot see that their own evidence is equally unconvincing. Nothing less than an infinite quantity of data could ever prove a scientific theory true. So in the end everything in science is just a theory.

Well, it's the truth. You have a theory. You have some evidence that you think supports the theory. You don't realize that this is a logical impossibility. Then you make a Wikipedia article about it and expect me to be impressed. Sorry.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Zosimus]

Here's a friendly tip: When discussing science with the scientifically literate, never say, "[Evolution]'s only a theory." Knowing better than to write that is pretty much a litmus test for scientific competence. I'm not familiar with you or your beliefs, but I assure that you lost all credibility at that point.

Here's a friendly tip. A closed mouth doesn't catch flies. So if you have nothing to add, maybe you should keep that mouth shut and the flies in the world safe.

"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered." - Stephen Jay Gould

Oh, here we go. You cannot come up with your own wrong things to say so you need to quote an expert on wrongness. Let's start here here: Newton didn't have a theory of gravity. He proposed the law of universal gravitation. A law is not a theory. A theory is not a law. And quotes by Stephen Jay Gould won't convince me otherwise.

"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge." –Wiki

Bullcrud.

And here's your chance to prove the central thesis of the thread wrong. You've just been given evidence. Prove that it wasn't an useless gesture of potential benefit only to non-creationists reading along. Show them that you're an evidence based thinker, and that evidence can actually modify your position or argument. What are your feelings now about a comment like, "Evolution is only a theory"?

Evolution is only a theory. And you should learn to use hyphens when you type. There's a difference between a man-eating alligator and a man eating alligator. So next time type in evidence-based thinker.

But as I've already pointed out, evidence is pointless. Evidentialism is false. Empiricism is a philosophical dead end.

Also, I looked at your link. I didn't see the relevance to the discussion about the value of providing evidence to creationists on demand. Atheists don't need evidence.

Yes, that's something that we call special pleading. You require others to provide evidence and then you exempt yourself from the requirement. Lovely.

The article was flawed in several ways apart from the author's assumption that atheists need evidence to support their atheism. He doesn't seem to know what an atheist is (very few of us claim gods cannot or do not exist), he's confused about burden of proof (it obviously rests only with the person that wants to be believed), he's confused about any relevance of proving a negative to justify atheism (what are we trying to prove as atheists or about atheism?), he misunderstands Occam's Razor and its use (it's used to rank hypotheses, not eliminate them), and almost nobody is making the argument that absence of evidence is evidence of absence since it is obviously wrong, although arguing that the absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence is a valid position..

No, you don't get it. So here's a simple breakdown. You claim that the burden of proof rests on the one making a claim. Yet, the statement "that the burden of proof rests on the one making a claim" is a claim for which you bear the burden of proof. Yet you have no proof for it. So why shouldn't I conclude that it's false and self-refuting?

Atheism is analogous to aleprchaunism and avampirism. No evidence is needed to hold those positions, they are not positive claims about the nonexistence or impossibility of leprechauns and vampires, no negative need be proved, there is no burden of proof, etc..

Okay, well, I don't believe in atheists. They simply don't exist.

How did this guy get into a philosophy magazine that otherwise looks respectable? This smacks of religious apologetics in its methods.

Oh, well, he got a Ph.D. in philosophy and became a university professor, that's how.
http://lecturers.haifa.ac.il/en/hcc/mantony/Pages/default.aspx#

Oh, and evolution is here to stay. If the theory were falsified today, there is only one idea that could replace it: A deceptive intelligent designer created the earth and its contents including the geological column and the nested morphological (taxonomical, embryologic), biochemical, and genetic hierarchies to make it look like evolution had occurred.

The sad thing is that you actually believe that.

Can you think of a different explanation than evolution or a deceptive intelligent designer trying to make it look like we had evolved from a common ancestral form over deep time?

Sure. You have no critical reasoning skills. That explains it entirely.

Have you considered that if you ever succeed in falsifying Darwin's theory, you'll have a new problem to contend with: The intelligent designer you uncovered cannot be the Christian god, who we are told loves us and wants us to know Him to the extent that he has written a book to us that contradicts the theory of evolution, performed miracles, and appeared on earth all so that we would know among other things that He made the "kinds" from nothing.

Is that god a deceiver?

I don't care as I'm not Christian.

 

[Zosimus]

Um.....if you're referring to the science advocates here as "Darwinists" then you couldn't be more wrong. Sayak for example has done an exemplary job of outlining a great deal of evidence in multiple threads.

Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

I don't have time to waste on your post as you didn't bother to address any of the points I made. I imagine that you didn't understand them. So I'll just address your link to Sayak:

The theory of evolution predicts that descent with modification with natural selection will create species that will show biological similarities with their ancestral lineage while slowly diverging as time progresses into newer types of body structure. The theory of evolution predicts that when we look at two very different seeming types (land animals and fish), there will be ancient animals who lived in the past who would share characteristics of both fish and land animals and we would see a chronological sequence where we would see certain types of fossil fish appear that are more and more land animal like until the first fossils of land amphibians crop up.

Okay, so if Darwinism=="TRUE" then Biological Similarities will == "TRUE"

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Eusthenopteron_foordi_1.jpg

Evidence of Biological Similarities.

So although Sayek never states a conclusion, he implies that this logical fallacy demonstrates Darwinism.

It's a textbook example of a logical fallacy. I guess you got sucked in.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't have time to waste on your post as you didn't bother to address any of the points I made.

Probably because of all the straw man arguments you were making.

Okay, so if Darwinism=="TRUE" then Biological Similarities will == "TRUE"

Seriously? That's all you took from the material? That simplistic phrase was the full extent of what you absorbed?

I'll just let that speak for itself.

So although Sayek never states a conclusion, he implies that this logical fallacy demonstrates Darwinism.

It's a textbook example of a logical fallacy. I guess you got sucked in.

Only if one assumes that your simplistic takeaway fully represents what Sayak presented. Fortunately, it only seems to be you and the creationists here who've done that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Here's your standard logic pattern:

If humans and chimps share a common ancestor, they will have similar DNA.
They have similar DNA.
Therefore, they share a common ancestor.

Now suddenly all of your logic goes right the window. Because the conclusion is one you agree with, suddenly you find no fault with the logic. "Yes, that's right!" you all proclaim, nodding your heads in agreement. "Why, if Christians only understood the evidence, they'd all be Darwinists as we are. It's only logical."

That's not the argument.

Sorry. There's nothing logical about science. That's why I said that the data are irrelevant. You took it to mean that I agreed with you. What I meant is that evidentialism is false and demonstrably so. Then I posted an article that contains all the reasons that evidentialism is false, and I'm sure that some of you will say "I don't get it. He seems to be talking about atheism. That's out of scope."

Your article wasn't convincing. I told you why.

the point is that Darwinists have a love-hate relationship with evidence. They demand evidence of their opponents but provide none of their own.

You have that backward. It's the creationists telling us that we have no evidence despite there being mountains of it from independent avenues, while offering an alternative hypothesis supported zero evidence.

Why would we abandon a well supported scientific theory that is useful for a faith based idea that can't be used for anything? What have creationists revealed or accomplished for mankind?

They point out that any evidence provided by their opponents is unconvincing, but they cannot see that their own evidence is equally unconvincing.

That is expected. I don't think that too many reason and evidence based thinkers are expecting to convince faith based thinkers of anything using evidence. It's not how they come to their position, and it canpt budge them from it.

What evidence were you thinking creationists have provided that is being rejected by the scientific community? What is the evidence for creationism? All I see are criticisms of the science. The entire argument for creation doesn't even mention creationism. It's basically the implied argument that either science or creationists are correct followed by the claim that the scientists are wrong, and therefore creationists must by default be correct.

Nothing less than an infinite quantity of data could ever prove a scientific theory true. So in the end everything in science is just a theory.

Still?

Well, it's the truth. You have a theory. You have some evidence that you think supports the theory. You don't realize that this is a logical impossibility. Then you make a Wikipedia article about it and expect me to be impressed. Sorry.

I don't think that anybody is expecting anything from you different from this. I expect you to keep saying that there is no evidence for evolution and that it's only a theory.

Faith based thinking is alien to the critical thinker, but not mysterious.

 

[Zosimus]

Probably because of all the straw man arguments you were making.

Seriously? That's all you took from the material? That simplistic phrase was the full extent of what you absorbed?

Yeah, because that's all there was. Here—why don't we try this? Construct some sort of an argument that you think supports the idea of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (hereinafter called "neo-Darwinism" or just "Darwinism"). Additionally, if you could use logical symbols such as the ones at Symbolic Logic { Philosophy Index } that would be great.

Only if one assumes that your simplistic takeaway fully represents what Sayak presented. Fortunately, it only seems to be you and the creationists here who've done that.

Well, his entire rant is spouting evidence without considering whether that evidence is useful or relevant.

 

[Zosimus]

That's not the argument.

All right. Why don't you explain what the argument is. If you could use symbols such as the ones at Symbolic Logic { Philosophy Index } that would be great.

Your article wasn't convincing. I told you why.

No, you didn't give any reason. Yes, you spouted some ideas about how atheists don't need evidence (special pleading) but every argument you made he already anticipated and argued against. So, you basically ignored his argument entirely.

You have that backward. It's the creationists telling us that we have no evidence despite there being mountains of it from independent avenues, while offering an alternative hypothesis supported zero evidence.

We have already established that evidence is irrelevant. What's your point?

Why would we abandon a well supported scientific theory that is useful for a faith based idea that can't be used for anything? What have creationists revealed or accomplished for mankind?

What you seem to be arguing is that everything that is useful is also true. For example, electrical circuits can be analyzed from the standard circuit flow, which postulates that electrical energy flows from high (positive) to low (negative). Or the electrical circuit can be analyzed from the point of view that electrons are actually flowing from the negative anode to the positive anode. Both methods work equally well. That doesn't mean that the standard flow model is correct nor does it imply that electrons actually exist.

That is expected. I don't think that too many reason and evidence based thinkers are expecting to convince faith based thinkers of anything using evidence. It's not how they come to their position, and it canpt budge them from it.

First of all, there is a big difference between evidence-based thinkers and reason-based thinkers. Evidence is unreasonable. It doesn't work. This has already been pointed out.

What evidence were you thinking creationists have provided that is being rejected by the scientific community? What is the evidence for creationism? All I see are criticisms of the science. The entire argument for creation doesn't even mention creationism. It's basically the implied argument that either science or creationists are correct followed by the claim that the scientists are wrong, and therefore creationists must by default be correct.

I have no interest in creationists. I am criticizing the logical failings of your philosophy (so-called). You want to turn this into a false dichotomy that someone is either an evidentialist or a Bible Thumper. There are other possibilities you know.

Still?

Yes, Darwinism is still a theory and arguably not a very scientific one.

I don't think that anybody is expecting anything from you different from this. I expect you to keep saying that there is no evidence for evolution and that it's only a theory.

Well, that's because it's impossible to have evidence for a theory. You can have evidence against a theory but never evidence for one.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah, because that's all there was.

You're lying. Let's look at one example from Sayak's threads, i.e., POST #1 from the "Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed" thread. Are you seriously going to argue that there was literally nothing else there except the mere statement "if Darwinism=="TRUE" then Biological Similarities will == "TRUE"? Because when I look through it, I see descriptions of specific patterns, both chronological and anatomical, that are to be expected under evolutionary common ancestry, followed by descriptive examples of how the data meets those expectations.

So now the question is, were you deliberately misrepresenting Sayak's posts, or are they just beyond your capabilities?

Here—why don't we try this? Construct some sort of an argument that you think supports the idea of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (hereinafter called "neo-Darwinism" or just "Darwinism"). Additionally, if you could use logical symbols such as the ones at Symbolic Logic { Philosophy Index } that would be great.

Don't need to. That populations evolve via Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian mechanisms is a repeatedly observed, documented, and studied fact. The process is so prevalent, undergraduate students demonstrate it in BIO 101 lab experiments every year, we manipulate the process to our own ends, and we are actively fighting against it (e.g., antibiotic resistance).

Well, his entire rant is spouting evidence without considering whether that evidence is useful or relevant.

If you're of the mind that data is neither useful nor relevant, then it is pointless to discuss science with you.

 

[Zosimus]

You're lying. Let's look at one example from Sayak's threads, i.e., POST #1 from the "Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed" thread. Are you seriously going to argue that there was literally nothing else there except the mere statement "if Darwinism=="TRUE" then Biological Similarities will == "TRUE"? Because when I look through it, I see descriptions of specific patterns, both chronological and anatomical, that are to be expected under evolutionary common ancestry, followed by descriptive examples of how the data meets those expectations.

So your argument, in a nutshell, is that one logical fallacy proves nothing, but when you put a large number of them together, as Sayak has, they prove evolution?

So now the question is, were you deliberately misrepresenting Sayak's posts, or are they just beyond your capabilities?

You really don't get it, do you? All right. Let's establish the argument simply so that you can follow it.

When you say that theory T makes predictions P, we can write that as:
T => P (T implies P or if T then P).
After that, you go out in the real world and you observe P.
So you think that T has been confirmed.

But all that has happened is that you have committed a logical fallacy.

Don't need to. That populations evolve via Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian mechanisms is a repeatedly observed, documented, and studied fact. The process is so prevalent, undergraduate students demonstrate it in BIO 101 lab experiments every year, we manipulate the process to our own ends, and we are actively fighting against it (e.g., antibiotic resistance).

Oh, so now the argument is that because bacteria can develop resistance to some antibiotics that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor? Really? Are you sure you didn't miss a premise there somewhere?

If you're of the mind that data is neither useful nor relevant, then it is pointless to discuss science with you.

I'm not of the mind that data are neither useful nor relevant. I've already demonstrated that to you.

You remind me of Christians who insist that if you don't accept the Bible as the word of God then it's pointless to discuss things.

 

[Jose Fly]

So your argument, in a nutshell, is that one logical fallacy proves nothing, but when you put a large number of them together, as Sayak has, they prove evolution?

No. You're assuming that you merely saying "logical fallacy" constitutes proof of one, and then expecting the rest of us to follow along.

If all you have is mere assertions of a fallacy, that speaks for itself.

You really don't get it, do you? All right. Let's establish the argument simply so that you can follow it.

When you say that theory T makes predictions P, we can write that as:
T => P (T implies P or if T then P).
After that, you go out in the real world and you observe P.
So you think that T has been confirmed.

But all that has happened is that you have committed a logical fallacy.

Then I have to wonder if all jury verdicts on crimes that had no eye witnesses are also fallacious.

Oh, so now the argument is that because bacteria can develop resistance to some antibiotics that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor?

Ah, now we see the dishonest moving of goalposts. You sure you aren't a creationist?

Notice how at first you asked about NeoDarwinian evolution, but once that was answered you immediately shifted to human/chimp common ancestry, I guess hoping that no one would catch you.

I'm not of the mind that data are neither useful nor relevant.

Care to try that again without the triple negative?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If the intent is to try and change their mind then yes, I would say it's a waste of time. If your intent is to make your POV accessible and hone your arguments for your own sake then I would not say it's a waste of time.

Absolutely no question! It is now quite well-known among neuroscientists, psychologists and the like that we tend very strongly to favour our emotions over evidence when dealing with things that are we believe and help to inform our world-view. All the data in all the museums around the world will never convince the committed young-Earth creationist that his God didn't actually make Adam first, then pull Eve out as a kind of after-thought because Adam didn't really take a fancy to any of the animals (unlike many young farmers ).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Pfft - where's your data on why there are still monkeys?

Left it lying beside the LAND-LINE TELEPHONE, which nobody's using anymore.