The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Enai de a lukal]

So I am scientifically illiterate when speaking about something that isn't science (evolution).

Saying things like this makes you seem like even more of a crackpot conspiracy-theorist raving loonie. Evolution is science. Calling it not-science won't make it so. If you wish to have any credibility, you can't deny a patent fact- it is accepted, credible empirical science, even if you think it is mistaken; the only way you're going to offer an argument that is AT ALL persuasive, is if you can explain how it is mistaken, despite all its virtues- simply ignoring them actually hurts your case, more than you know apparently. Just a tip, for what it's worth.

 

[Skwim]

Yeah, and "through changes originating internally" could mean microevolution.

Interesting that your reading of the definition includes "microevolution." Moreover, in biology "micro-evolution" is pretty much a meaningless term other than distinguishing between degrees of evolution.

". . . for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time. "
source
​

So make no mistake, your use of "microevolution" doesn't mean squat. As the linked article here explains:

"In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis."
​

Geeee! who would have thought? Creationists, those devout, honest, and upright Christians purposely misusing science. Nah, it couldn't be true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . could it?
How could a real Christian do such a thing---bend the truth (in essence, lie) to advance their agenda? Ain't that against their rules of righteous behavior or something?

"

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Let’s not bring logic into an argument that bristles with irrationality. Try reading that drivel you just spouted and its absurdity should become evident.

Here's a hint: its a trick- moving from "it is possible God exists" to "it is possible God exists necessarily" (which is the same as "God exists necessarily") is illegitimate, but its not obvious unless you're familiar with these modal notions- it is not possible that God exists necessarily, unless God's non-existence is somehow self-contradictory. It is not. He's trying to play with technical logical notions from modal logic that he is neither familiar with nor able/willing to defend- don't let him get away with it.

 

[Simurgh]

Here's a hint: its a trick- moving from "it is possible God exists" to "it is possible God exists necessarily" (which is the same as "God exists necessarily") is illegitimate, but its not obvious unless you're familiar with these modal notions- it is not possible that God exists necessarily, unless God's non-existence is somehow self-contradictory. It is not. He's trying to play with technical logical notions from modal logic that he is neither familiar with nor able/willing to defend- don't let him get away with it.

If CotW had an argument to make, or would actually respond to something with a statement that had any substance, I would be glad to respond to him. Alas, this has yet to happen.

It is quite obvious that CotW is using logical fallacies to argue from a weak, if not non-existent position. Using the “argument from authority fallacy” is just one such instant of sloppy thinking. One would have to accept creationism as having any logical value to engage in any argument here.

He then moves into equivocation and amphiboly to further confuse the issue—as if there actually were an issue to debate other than his assertions which have no rational basis. Eventually, we end up with a liberal application of teleological arguments and the ever favored Red Herring.

What he basically tries is to use an argument by consensus—a consensus only valid within his rather restricted and self-limiting universe of creationism—and tries to inflict said consensus on people who thoroughly disagree with the premises he postulates.



Of course, his all-time favorite seems to be the good old Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (if there’s no evidence against it, it must be true). But the best thing is he is proud of the fact that he wants to remain ignorant, simply because it’s easier on his nerves, as his earlier reply suggests.

 

[Ouroboros]

Geeee! who would have thought? Creationists, those devout, honest, and upright Christians purposely misusing science. Nah, it couldn't be true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . could it?

Creationists tend to cherry-pick their own holy book (whichever one that might be) and cherry-pick science, and doing so to fit their own agenda, views, beliefs, and reject anything opposing their views. It's a very egocentric worldview. Their god isn't God, it's themselves (which they will deny fervently).

How could a real Christian do such a thing---bend the truth (in essence, lie) to advance their agenda? Ain't that against their rules of righteous behavior or something?

Thou shall not lie... except when you're trying to convert people to your religion.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It is a requirement. Life from nonlife COULD be a false premise, and if it COULD be false, then the alleged result of it (evolution) cannot be a fact.

False. Even if say "god" created all life in a gensis sort of deal he could have created the most basic form of life and it could have evolved by natural laws and evolution still be fact. However Abiogensis is a real theory in science which often works off of evolution rather than evolution working off of abiogensis.

For example if I walk from point a to point b then I walked. However it doesn't matter if I walked to point A from another point or if I was dropped off by a car. I doesn't change the fact that I walked from point A to point B.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yeah, and "through changes originating internally" could mean microevolution.

It does. Too bad there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. You almost had a point.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Lets not fool ourselves. We do not know how life can come from nonlife. The closest we've ever come was the Miller experiment and even that still had miles to go. Life from nonlife is one of the biggest mysteries of science. Don't know what that video is about and I don't pay attention much to links or videos posted on here. I can easily post videos and links supporting my position as well, as they are also out there.

Your right. We should fool oursevles that science is simply cockamany and a book with more contradictions than the X-men movies got it right.

Krauss was already dismantled by Bill Craig. The only videos that are made now are by his ghost.

Craig has been dismantled by half a dozen people. Not all of them even atheist. His opinion and arguments I find to be little more than the same re-hashed and false arguments given by those such as yourself but with bigger words in them. Same stupidity but with a slightly better vocabulary.

I've never seen Neil Degrasse Tyson have a debate with anyone regarding these subjects. Until I see him engage in a formal or informal debate regarding these issues where his position is attacked and critiqued, and he has to go through the motions of defending his position, then I don't want to be bothered with him.

Neil is one of the highest regarded scientists of his field. He doesn't debate usually as he spends his time focusing on learning and research rather than debate. He has been on record saying that he doesn't want to debate god because its a waste of his precious time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I must be in the twilight zone lol.

I'm pretty sure you are.

Changes in life depends on life being here. If you take God out of the equation, that means that life came from nonlife. Point blank, period. But you don't know whether life came from nonlife, that is what you ASSUME.

Yes, change in life depends on life being here. There is nothing in evolution that says anything about how life arose in the first place. That’s a different field of study.

Evolution doesn't take god out of the equation. It says absolutely nothing about any god of any kind. It's a description of the mechanisms behind the diversity of life we see on the planet. And a very accurate one, at that.

Plenty of people accept the factual nature of evolution while still believing that god created the universe.

So from this point, anyone that will continue to deny the simple fact that evolution depends on abiogenesis so it can't be a fact because abiogenesis isn't a fact...anyone that isn't intellectually honest enough to admit that, just stop talking to me.

You can’t go on about intellectual honesty if you don’t engage in it yourself. Well, I guess you can, but you definitely run the risk of looking foolish.
Organisms adapt to environments over time. That is a fact of life. You don’t need to know where all life began for that to be a fact.

If you don’t know how gravity originated, we can still understand its mechanisms and how it operates. Do you deny this?

This is elementary logic here and I cant keep arguing simple stuff.

You are arguing nonsense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If God exists, and he used evolution as a method for his creation...that still would kick atheism right up the a%$ now, wouldn't it?

Atheism and evolution aren't intertwined either.
As noted in the post you were responding to.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Check my other 1500 posts

I have, there's nothing there.

Hence my question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've never seen Neil Degrasse Tyson have a debate with anyone regarding these subjects. Until I see him engage in a formal or informal debate regarding these issues where his position is attacked and critiqued, and he has to go through the motions of defending his position, then I don't want to be bothered with him.

Here's another thing you don't understand about science.

Scientific theories (like the theory of evolution) have been debated in the scientific literature (by scientists: ya know, the people who know what they're talking about). In the case of evolution, it's been debated for almost two centuries now, and as of yet, no evidence has ever been presented that has falsified it. In fact, all the evidence discovered since Darwin initially posed the hypothesis has only reinforced and validated it, which is why it is now referred to as scientific theory (the highest point of graduation for a scientific hypothesis).

The theory of evolution has been through the ringer (as all scientific theories have) which is why it is now accepted fact. Keep that in mind when you try using the old canard that it's "only a theory."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sam Harris said that Dr. Craig put the "fear of god" in some of his atheist friends. That is respect, my friend.

It's called a joke.


Richard Dawkins said of William Lane Craig:

"Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either."


So what??

 

[Parsimony]

If God exists, and he used evolution as a method for his creation...that still would kick atheism right up the a%$ now, wouldn't it?

Yes, but that would be perfectly fine with me since I'm a Christian.

 

[Simurgh]

How about less rhetoric and more refutation of the argument that has been presented.

Well then present an argument. So far, you have yet to actually argue something of substance that is not based on mere belief. Once you have some facts that withstand scientific inquiry and can be rationally argued we can move on past your ideological sparring.

So I am scientifically illiterate when speaking about something that isn't science (evolution). I will take that.

Since when has evolution not been science? Are you even familiar with what a scientific theory actually is?

I was just using my scientific illiteracy to explain to you what evolution actually is. I apologize if I offended you by doing so.

see above. You cannot have it both ways, it is either science or it’s not. So if you do not think of evolution as a valid SCIENTIFIC theoretical framework, then you cannot claim to explain it scientifically.

Because I can post two videos that agree with my position and I am quite sure you would disagree with my videos just like I disagree with yours. So why waste my time.

Sam Harris said that Dr. Craig put the "fear of god" in some of his atheist friends. That is respect, my friend.

Oh that’s so funny. Xtian cherry picking practices at their best. You sure do have selective hearing. You might want to look at the whole video and that quote’s context before you say something that ignorant. Sarcasm apparently passes right over your head. And a sign of respect? What have you been watching? It certainly was not that debate where he says it. But I digress; you do not want to watch anything that puts your opinion in question.
So I inserted that particular video in which he shows Craig up for the self-righteous buffoon he is—just in case you need a refresher.
[youtube]FM-BC5QHexU[/youtube]
Sam Harris Destroys Craig in debate - YouTube

Yeah, and Tyson doesn't seem to debate anyone that has a different interpretation of the evidence than he has. That is how you get your bones. And I do watch debates involving those I don't agree with, and they happen to be debating against those that I do agree with.

Again you might need to actually read what I say before you dip over the edge. I stated that he debates with other scientists concerning issues pertaining to his field of expertise—cosmology and astrophysics. Since the guys are debating to further their and other people’s knowledge in their fields, you cannot state that he is not willing to hear other scientists’ ideas. Even you should know that this is the foundational principle of science, it’s called the Socratic Method and we teach kids in high school how to employ it.

As I mentioned before, you are way deep into the ignorance is bliss point of view to know much about anything outside your own interpretation of what ought to be. And I am sure you watch what is deemed safe by those you agree with, the question is, are you actually hearing anything you don’t want to hear?

 

[LuisDantas]

If God exists, and he used evolution as a method for his creation...that still would kick atheism right up the a%$ now, wouldn't it?

No. But it would make so-called "Creationism" even more ironic than it already is.

 

[fantome profane]

If God exists, and he used evolution as a method for his creation...that still would kick atheism right up the a%$ now, wouldn't it?

Very insightful observation. If God exists atheism would be wrong. Brilliant, just brilliant.

But evolution would still be true either way.

 

[Parsimony]

I believe that there are plenty of creationists out there who would not be satisfied with any level of evidence that could even hypothetically be supplied in favor of evolution. Imagine the following circumstances:

Potential Event: Abiogenesis proven possible.
Potential Creationist Response: "Just because it has been demonstrated that life can come from non-life doesn't mean that contemporary organisms did come from non-life in the distant past. It would just mean that life can come into existence via two different methods (abiogenesis and special creation)."

Potential Event: Beneficial mutations proven in a way that even creationists won't refute.
Potential Creationist Response: "Just because beneficial mutations exist doesn't mean that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor due to the accumulation of beneficial mutations over time. It's just that God put the ability for beneficial mutations to occur in the life He designed so that His creations could adapt more successfully."

Potential Event: Change of kinds observed in real time.
Potential Creationist Response: "Just because it has been proven that kinds can change doesn't mean that all life today came from a change of kinds in the distant past."

Potential Event: Evolution as a whole proven in obvious terms beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Potential Creationist Response: "Since a literal interpretation of the creation event in Genesis simply can't be wrong, there must be some kind of mistake or deception going on here. Just because we haven't proven that mistake or deception to exist yet doesn't mean that we won't prove it in the future."

They will find a way out each and every time. That's not to say that there aren't creationists that could be convinced given sufficient time and evidence. A creationist will only accept evolution when they are willing to accept it as a possibility. That was my saving grace. I considered it possible and just kept doing the research until I found all I needed in order to switch sides. Many creationists don't even consider it possible, however. After all, faith cannot be wrong. I even recall reading an essay online where the author said that he didn't believe that dinosaurs ever existed because the Bible never explicitly mentions them. I also had a member of my church question the existence of galaxies for the same reason.

 

[LuisDantas]

Very insightful observation. If God exists atheism would be wrong. Brilliant, just brilliant.

But evolution would still be true either way.

The language he used implies more than just atheism being wrong, though. It suggests that god, if he exists, opposes atheism. Which I find very unlikely even if we take atheism being wrong as a true premise.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Very insightful observation. If God exists atheism would be wrong. Brilliant, just brilliant.

But evolution would still be true either way.

You've completely missed the point. The point wasn't for me to be Captain Obvious, the point was the fact that most of these people on here are agnostics, atheist, naturalist, or any other belief that does not include the belief in a supernatural Deity. Someone suggested that God could have used evolution as a method for his creation....and my point was, fine, if that is the case then that would still mean your belief of agnosticism/atheism/naturalism is FALSE.

That was the point. Your sarcasm was highly noted :clap