It makes me sad every time...

[Swa]

Biological evolution is fitness differences over time. You evolved from your parents. Your evolutionary fitness is different from them both due to the nature of inheritence and other indeterminate factors. It is an instance of evolution. Does this mean you were not created in the image of God? No, of course not. Evolution happens, get used to it. You just appear to have an issue with species level evolution (or macro evolution) for some reason. Hopefully, if you understand that common descent is no problem creation, purpose, original sin etc., you will start to worry about more important things.

I have no reason to worry about evolution but look at my reply to Orbitaldawn, a lot of atheists are obsessed with it and any legitimate challenge to it because of a threat to their belief. Common descent is something for which there is no evidence. The comment was referring to the notion that something being different from its parents is proof of evolution. This is a common misconception about genetics. The fact of the matter is that rather than a difference or what people are actually meaning a change in genetic material it is a mix of existing genetic material.

The most fun way to reply to a person that claims "there is no evidence for the existence of God" is by simply, and calmly saying:
"That is interesting, could you please provide a definition of God ? Thanks " and enjoy...

This was actually a retort to the notion that evolution must be true because it has not been disproven. The common argument from ignorance. Helps to read the whole conversation sometimes.

This is incorrect. No medicine gets "proven" to be efficient. Empirical science just cannot prove anything (read up on the problem of induction). What empirical science shows is that observations are largely in line with a particular theory (e.g. compound X is good for alleviating headaches by binding to receptor Y) and that the theory is not rejected.

As an example. In the case of Champix (listened to some interesting discussions about it this week on 702), the theory is that it helps stop smoking. Empirical observations suggest that this is likely true with a P-value of less than 0.05 with not a lot of side-effects (e.g. often associated with vivid dreaming). There is no proof, just that empirical observations suggest it works.

Language matters. Scientists often abuse language. The case of misusing the concept of "proof" is one such example.

This is a semantics confusion. When people talk about proof they are not talking about absolute proof of a statement's truth. In reality there really is no absolute truth. We'll leave that out but it does illustrate that when people are talking of proof they cannot be referring to certainty that a claim is correct. There is no consensus whether proof should be used in science. Some scientists do use it and others try to avoid it. That does not mean they are abusing language, only that there's a difference of opinion over semantics.

The "no proof" concept in science is an ideal which itself does not fit in science as an investigation for truth. If we assume it to be true then science is itself an isolated field with no worth. But it can't be true because science is not isolated. Science interacts across a wide range of fields in society and as such has to conform to certain norms and standards not necessarily set by scientists or people acting primarily as scientists. It reminds of the imaginary philosophical void that some try to cling to.

 

[Swa]

I have said no such thing and nor do I have to. You have made claims which are inconsistent with my own understanding, and I've asked you to point the 'logic, evidence or mathematical scrutiny' out to me. You have failed to do so.

So you try and muddy the waters and throw a lot of words into the mix, playing semantics and setting up straw men as is your normal practice. All the while exhibiting a confidence you accuse me of, yet you provide absolutely nothing to suggest your confidence is well placed other than religious leanings.

Your foundations are nothing more than castles in the sky, and it's evident to anyone with half a brain that you have a position you are trying to defend which has not got a shred of 'logic, evidence or mathematical scrutiny' behind it.

Hence, I'm embarrassed for you and your intellectual dishonesty which you seem to be unaware of.

Claims which are inconsistent with your understanding exactly. You are looking at your understanding as being correct and being ignorant of the fact that you can easily be wrong. I have not pointed out any 'logic, evidence or mathematical scrutiny' because you have not pointed out anything of substance to back up your claims. I have said that you can find it in all of the evolution threads. Speaking of claims what are my claims? Let's see if you know the answer. You refer to my "normal practice" so you should be very familiar with them.

You should learn what intellectual dishonesty means. Your mocking attitude in the face of numerous logically sound arguments against your position shows that you are ignorant of all of them.

 

[Techne]

I have no reason to worry about evolution but look at my reply to Orbitaldawn, a lot of atheists are obsessed with it and any legitimate challenge to it because of a threat to their belief.

I don't know why you even fuss about this. Atheists, if they are intellectually honest and clued up, cannot use or abuse the theory of evolution to support their atheism or as an argument against theism and religion. It is as simple as that. Similarly, you cannot support theism or argue against atheism by attacking the theory of evolution. Many people on both sides appear to be confused about this.

Common descent is something for which there is no evidence.

I disagree. You and your cousin have a common ancestor. That is common descent within species. Your problem, again, appears to be common descent at the species level. To me, the anatomical evidence, genetic evidence and age of the earth suggest that common descent at the species level is a justified belief to hold.

The comment was referring to the notion that something being different from its parents is proof of evolution. This is a common misconception about genetics. The fact of the matter is that rather than a difference or what people are actually meaning a change in genetic material it is a mix of existing genetic material.

That is still evolution. Micro-evolution if you want.

This is a semantics confusion. When people talk about proof they are not talking about absolute proof of a statement's truth. In reality there really is no absolute truth.We'll leave that out but it does illustrate that when people are talking of proof they cannot be referring to certainty that a claim is correct. There is no consensus whether proof should be used in science. Some scientists do use it and others try to avoid it. That does not mean they are abusing language, only that there's a difference of opinion over semantics.

The "no proof" concept in science is an ideal which itself does not fit in science as an investigation for truth. If we assume it to be true then science is itself an isolated field with no worth. But it can't be true because science is not isolated. Science interacts across a wide range of fields in society and as such has to conform to certain norms and standards not necessarily set by scientists or people acting primarily as scientists. It reminds of the imaginary philosophical void that some try to cling to.

I don't know how you can rationally and logically come to the conclusion that there is no absolute truth. It comes across as self-refuting. Anyway, I disagree about that.

You are correct that it is a language issue and so often disagreements are about differences in people's understanding of concepts. The concept of "proof" is just another example. The problem with claiming that there is no absolute truth (as you claim) is that all conversations looking for truth collapses into irrationality since the goal of such a conversation is irrational or logically unjustified. If this conversation is not about truth, then what is it about? Just disagreeing because you want to or what?

 

[zippy]

Exactly it's inheritance you described.


It's not my reasoning it's yours!


Even if that is true you're dwelling off point. Your contention was that Mahāvira surpassed the morality found in Christianity. The biblical however far surpasses it so clearly your contention is not true.


Many of those "nuts" have far better qualifications than your prophets of Darwinism like Dawkins. They certainly have far better qualifications than YOU yet your only response to them is an ad hominem attack because their view does not fit into yours. It's quite hypocritical of you to talk about lying when Ruse admitted the demarcation criteria he gave in the Dover trial is false and that science has metaphysical assumptions but denied this in the trial.


There's no reason to tell me what to read. Talkorigins is actually one of the worst twisting of facts websites there is. I do far more reading on evolution than on creation. Can you however say that you read more on creation than on evolution instead of wallowing in ignorance in your own preconceived view? No, your arguments show that you are rather ignorant of creationist arguments and to a great extent even some evolutionists who readily admit that your dogma does not explain the vast amounts of genetic information we are deciphering in living organisms.


When people get so upset over legitimate questioning of a belief it's actually not irrelevant. As pointed out previously if the facts supported it, which they don't, I would have no problem believing God created and used evolution. It does however pose a problem for the atheist who doesn't want to believe in and be accountable to God if evolution is bull. Explains why you guys defend it even more fiercely than we defend our religion.


You like looking in the mirror and thinking you're a representation of everybody. Only fools laugh in ignorance but just as you think there are a lot of you laughing a lot are laughing at your ignorance.


Beware of that confidence of yours. All you have said is "evolution is true, there's nothing to disprove it so it must be true." If I were you I would also be laughing to hide the egg on your face.

So if a child inherits from both parents, That child is not an exact copy of either one of parents. The child is slightly different. Also, do you agree that even the genes inherited from the parents can be altered slightly?

 

[zippy]

Do of you who argue against evolution also argue against genetic mutation ?

For example: http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

• Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.

As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.

 

[porchrat]

Do of you who argue against evolution also argue against genetic mutation ?

For example: http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

Swa probably reckons that is genetics already present. No evolution occurring... somehow... don't ask too many questions though about why we didn't see antibiotic resistance previously on the scale we see it today because he doesn't like those sort of hard questions.

 

[Spizz]

Claims which are inconsistent with your understanding exactly. You are looking at your understanding as being correct and being ignorant of the fact that you can easily be wrong. I have not pointed out any 'logic, evidence or mathematical scrutiny' because you have not pointed out anything of substance to back up your claims. I have said that you can find it in all of the evolution threads. Speaking of claims what are my claims? Let's see if you know the answer. You refer to my "normal practice" so you should be very familiar with them.

You should learn what intellectual dishonesty means. Your mocking attitude in the face of numerous logically sound arguments against your position shows that you are ignorant of all of them.

What a cop out. If you argue that the Eiffel tower is made of chocolate, do I need to prove that it's not before you tell me why you think it is?

As I said, I happen to think you are being intellectually dishonest because all of your research into evolution is so you can argue against it. On the other hand, I have read or heard nothing to convince me that evolution is not a fact, and unlike you, I have no agenda that pushes me one way or the other or drives my reading. If is proved we are living in the matrix, I have no problem with that. Similarly, if you can show me that the earth was designed by a creator, great, go ahead. I'm ready willing and able to receive these facts.

You see, I have no ulterior motive and until you can say the same, you are being dishonest with yourself and everyone else.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I have no reason to worry about evolution but look at my reply to Orbitaldawn, a lot of atheists are obsessed with it and any legitimate challenge to it because of a threat to their belief.

What belief? Or is this the theological retort again, about not wanting to be accountable to my creator?

Common descent is something for which there is no evidence.

Nonsense. I provided you with a vast array of evidence, compiled by an actual expert in the field, which you promptly dismissed out of hand, with vague, unsubstantiated accusations that they're twisting the facts.

The comment was referring to the notion that something being different from its parents is proof of evolution. This is a common misconception about genetics. The fact of the matter is that rather than a difference or what people are actually meaning a change in genetic material it is a mix of existing genetic material.

Evolution is change over successive generations. It can be observed directly.

This was actually a retort to the notion that evolution must be true because it has not been disproven. The common argument from ignorance. Helps to read the whole conversation sometimes.

Good thing I never said that, huh? *phew*

I said the theory of evolution has withstood falsification, and has been affirmed by evidence gathered over the last century, and this points to its strength. You then interjected your own nonsensical reasoning that God hasn't been disproven, so that points to the fact of His existence.

I'd appreciate a response to my post here, by the way.

 

[Spizz]

I said the theory of evolution has withstood falsification, and has been affirmed by evidence gathered over the last century, and this points to its strength. You then interjected your own nonsensical reasoning that God hasn't been disproven, so that points to the fact of His existence.

There is no proof for God, but I will use this as proof that he is real.

There is no proof for evolution, so I'll use this as proof that it is not real.

Bizarre. But totally consistent in SwaLand.

 

[Techne]

There is no proof for God

This is false. There are many proofs, just like there are many proofs that the interior angles of a triangle on an Euclidean plane add up to half a rotation. Of course, not everyone accept these proofs, but that is besides the point. Point being, there are various proofs.

 

[Spizz]

This is false. There are many proofs, just like there are many proofs that the interior angles of a triangle on an Euclidean plane add up to half a rotation. Of course, not everyone accept these proofs, but that is besides the point. Point being, there are various proofs.

Yeah, it wasn't me saying those things it was Swa and I was repeating them.

However....

There is no proof for God/god or gods.

Making him or them exist by talking about it or stringing out your circular reasoning doesn't count. Sorry, it just doesn't.

 

[Techne]

Yeah, it wasn't me saying those things it was Swa and I was repeating them.

However....

There is no proof for God/god or gods.

I disagree, as explained above.

Making him or them exist by talking about it or stringing out your circular reasoning doesn't count. Sorry, it just doesn't.

Yeah, proofs don't magically make things exist. It is not like when someone provides a mathematical or logical proof that all of a sudden that thing being proving becomes existent. I think a better way to understand proofs is that when they are valid, they discover (as opposed to magically making it) something that is necessarily (as opposed to contingently) true.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

This is false. There are many proofs, just like there are many proofs that the interior angles of a triangle on an Euclidean plane add up to half a rotation. Of course, not everyone accept these proofs, but that is besides the point. Point being, there are various proofs.

Those proofs can be used as proofs for anything defined appropriately, and can in no way get you to theism, or more specifically, Christianity.

 

[Techne]

Those proofs can be used as proofs for anything defined appropriately

How so?

and can in no way get you to theism, or more specifically, Christianity.

I disagree, the traditional proofs can get you to theism without religion. I agree, however, that they do not necessarily lead to any particular religion.

 

[Spizz]

I disagree, as explained above.


Yeah, proofs don't magically make things exist. It is not like when someone provides a mathematical or logical proof that all of a sudden that thing being proving becomes existent. I think a better way to understand proofs is that when they are valid, they discover (as opposed to magically making it) something that is necessarily (as opposed to contingently) true.

Yes. By and large, I can relate to that. We can't start to describe or understand a million things in our universe that we can't see, but it doesn't mean they don't necessarily exist. Like a black hole for instance.

But a creator? A god? Invented in our minds as an answer to explain why we exist? Is that in the same category?

Yes, we don't know a million things and likely never will. But to answer them all in one fell swoop by attributing them to a deity seems a little too convenient these days when we have other ways to find the answers.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

How so?

I assume you're talking about the Quinque viae (Aquinas' 5 proofs)? Replace 'God' with 'Council of Gods', and you've given proof for polytheism. Any being, entity or intentional object can be inserted at the end of those proofs, and then merely be defined as fitting the appropriate characteristics.

I disagree, the traditional proofs can get you to theism without religion. I agree, however, that they do not necessarily lead to any particular religion.

Well, I guess this depends on what you mean when you use the term 'theism'. If you mean 'the belief that at least one deity exists' then it can work. But if you venture into the nature of said deity, or this deity's relationship to the universe, then it won't work, as you said.

 

[Techne]

I assume you're talking about the Quinque viae (Aquinas' 5 proofs)? Replace 'God' with 'Council of Gods', and you've given proof for polytheism. Any being, entity or intentional object can be inserted at the end of those proofs, and then merely be defined as fitting the appropriate characteristics.

No, not really. Read up on the actual proofs and you will realize that what you are saying is inaccurate.

Well, I guess this depends on what you mean when you use the term 'theism'. If you mean 'the belief that at least one deity exists' then it can work. But if you venture into the nature of said deity, or this deity's relationship to the universe, then it won't work, as you said.

I am just referring to classical theism. Not deism or polytheism or pantheism or personalist theism etc.

 

[Techne]

Yes. By and large, I can relate to that. We can't start to describe or understand a million things in our universe that we can't see, but it doesn't mean they don't necessarily exist. Like a black hole for instance.

But a creator? A god? Invented in our minds as an answer to explain why we exist? Is that in the same category?

Yes, we don't know a million things and likely never will. But to answer them all in one fell swoop by attributing them to a deity seems a little too convenient these days when we have other ways to find the answers.

It is an ultimate explanation of why things (anything) exist. This is not a scientific question or a question that empirical science can answer. Empirical science does not provide ultimate answers of why things happen. People often think that scientific explanations somehow lead to answers previously answered by theism. I think this is mistaken. A simple example would be lightning. Some people, perhaps due to lack of scientific knowledge, would say that is God's work. If a scientists comes along and explains to him how lighting works, does that mean the person is wrong? Of course not. If theism is true, then both would ultimately be correct, the one describes an ultimate answer, the other describes how it is done.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

No, not really. Read up on the actual proofs and you will realize that what you are saying is inaccurate.

Then explain why I'm wrong, because it makes sense to me when I read the proofs. They're vague enough to allow room to insert anything in there which fits the description. This is all, of course, ignoring the myriad of problems with the proofs.

 

[Techne]

Then explain why I'm wrong, because it makes sense to me when I read the proofs. They're vague enough to allow room to insert anything in there which fits the description. This is all, of course, ignoring the myriad of problems with the proofs.

It is difficult for me to discuss them with you as I do not know how much you have read about them. Best is, I think, is if you chick me a PM with your views about them and your objections (or those you have read about) to them, then we can take from there.