You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
"The fossils have evidence of change, so this make evolution fact."
Simply not true.
Who is arguing that we don't see species come and go?
Who would argue that if a species could not survive a huge environmental event, it would perish?
The argument goes to the theory and belief that underlying and causal to the changes is some force of random ignorant chance.
There is no existing proof of random ignorant chance, no formula, no ability to predict when or where it might generate a change in complex species, and no evidence whatsoever that life comes from non life.
These elemental issues are ignored, with scientists thinking making up some magical mysterious force of random ignorant chance and then assume it is true because they have no way to falsify it...solves the logical and scientific problems.
It is no different than assuming ID with no way to falsify it.
In either case, the first assumption of the cause, be it ID or non ID doesn't change the data, and doesn't actually change the theory.
Darwin was a deist who rejected literal beliefs in the Bible, and he saw no conflict in his theory and belief in a Deistic philosophy. Why?
Because there is no conflict actually. If every scientists began to believe in deism, there would be no reason to change evolutionary theory, except to say that the system that governs biological organisms, nature if you will, works exactly the same way if ID or non ID is the first assumption.
There may be moral, and political ramifications from choosing ID over non ID, but as far as molecular biology and its particular field, nothing actually changes.
Knowing that, then it becomes important to look at why we would teach men from monkey, when there is no fact of man from monkey. There is an agenda that is hidden because people are taught men from monkey now as kids from an early age, rather than taught neither men from monkey or men from God.
We don't know, and pretending to have fact or know, is intellectually dishonest.
I suspect Darwin would never state as a fact that he knew with 100% certainty that men came from a monkey.
Evolutionary theory is soft science, not hard science. So many assumptions, not facts are taken as fact.
Simply not true.
Who is arguing that we don't see species come and go?
Who would argue that if a species could not survive a huge environmental event, it would perish?
The argument goes to the theory and belief that underlying and causal to the changes is some force of random ignorant chance.
There is no existing proof of random ignorant chance, no formula, no ability to predict when or where it might generate a change in complex species, and no evidence whatsoever that life comes from non life.
These elemental issues are ignored, with scientists thinking making up some magical mysterious force of random ignorant chance and then assume it is true because they have no way to falsify it...solves the logical and scientific problems.
It is no different than assuming ID with no way to falsify it.
In either case, the first assumption of the cause, be it ID or non ID doesn't change the data, and doesn't actually change the theory.
Darwin was a deist who rejected literal beliefs in the Bible, and he saw no conflict in his theory and belief in a Deistic philosophy. Why?
Because there is no conflict actually. If every scientists began to believe in deism, there would be no reason to change evolutionary theory, except to say that the system that governs biological organisms, nature if you will, works exactly the same way if ID or non ID is the first assumption.
There may be moral, and political ramifications from choosing ID over non ID, but as far as molecular biology and its particular field, nothing actually changes.
Knowing that, then it becomes important to look at why we would teach men from monkey, when there is no fact of man from monkey. There is an agenda that is hidden because people are taught men from monkey now as kids from an early age, rather than taught neither men from monkey or men from God.
We don't know, and pretending to have fact or know, is intellectually dishonest.
I suspect Darwin would never state as a fact that he knew with 100% certainty that men came from a monkey.
Evolutionary theory is soft science, not hard science. So many assumptions, not facts are taken as fact.
Quote from trendlover:
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Could we agree that evidence is just raw data? That evidence in the way evolutionists speak of evidence is more often than not just fitting into a model that was designed to assume chance (when chance is not proved)?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fossils have evidence of change, so this make evolution fact. See? They do not "assume".
"-The role of Archaeopteryx has been debated ever since 1861. Is it really a missing link between reptiles and birds, or is it just a bird and not a missing link at all?
Fossils show how some reptiles became more bird-like.â¢A further seven skeletons have come to light, and all of them confirm that Huxley was correct.
â¢In addition, fantastic new specimens of birds have been found in Spain and China, which are some 30 or 40 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, and they are more bird-like, exactly as an evolutionist predicts.
â¢The new Spanish and Chinese birds have short bony tails, and their hand claws are reduced - they are becoming more bird-like.
â¢The Chinese localities have not only produced amazing new birds, but also new dinosaur specimens with feathers!"
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Three Fallacies of Evolution
We routinely hear that the biological evidence proves evolution, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Recently PZ Myers made this claim for the fossil evidence and Sean Carroll for the molecular evidence. These evidences are often debated and discussed, but what is often missed is that this evolutionary reasoning is illogical to begin with. Philosophical failure is not a good starting point for discussion. Any debate needs to start with a clear understanding of the evidence and what it means. Unfortunately, such a starting point is difficult to come by. In fact, three different fallacies are routinely at work in the evolution genre. Here are quotes from Myers and Carroll, and an explanation of the fallacies.
In his book The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, Carroll discusses the use of genetic markers such as LINEs and SINEs (long and short interspersed elements, respectively) to reconstruct evolutionary relationships. He concludes:
biologists have sufficient forensic evidence to determine species' kinship beyond any doubt. [99]
Similarly, Myers derives similar certainty from the fossil evidence:
The evolution of whales is also a matter of fact and evidence. We have the fossils; we can see a pattern of change across geological time, from those hooved terrestrial quadrupeds to flippered ambush predators adapted to living in the shallows to four-flippered, paddle-tailed swimmers to obligate water-dwellers with flukes and no hind limbs, with many stages in between. It is a beautiful and strongly-supported example of macroevolutionary change. So yes, we believe it â you'd have to be blind to ignore the testimony of the rocks.
Fallacy #1: Affirming the consequent
These types of truth claims are consistent in the evolution genre. The first, and most important fallacy is that these arguments affirm the consequent. This fallacy states that if P implies Q, then Q implies P. For instance, if a theory predicts that it will rain next Tuesday, that does not mean that if it rains on Tuesday the theory is true. But this is precisely the logic of evolution. If evolution is true then we expect fossil sequences and genetic similarities to fall into the expected evolutionary patterns. Evolutionists such as Carroll and Myers have found such patterns in the fossil and molecular data and claim, as above, that they prove evolution to be true.
Fallacy #2: Confirmation bias
A common motif in the evolution genre is the elevation of confirming evidence. As in the examples above, the patterns that fit the evolutionary expectations are touted as proof texts. But there are plenty of evidential problems as well. Often these problems are in the same data in which the evolutionists find their persuasive patterns. Yes, many fossils fall into the expected pattern, but many do not. Likewise for the molecular data. These uncooperative data are often not considered when evolutionists formulate their proofs of why evolution is a fact. This fallacy is known as confirmation bias.
Fallacy #3: Evidence denial
Because there is so much uncooperative data, evolutionary expectations have become quite flexible. In fact, sometimes it is difficult to identify just what constitutes the expected evolutionary pattern. In the fossil record, for instance, increasing complexity, decreasing complexity, rapid appearance, trees, bushes, diversity explosions, stasis for eons can all fit within evolution's broad and flexible imagination of what natural forces can do. Therefore, when evolutionists find great significant in evidences that fulfill some particular evolutionary pattern, they are ignoring the many other patterns that evolution also expects.
Evolutionists consistently make eye-brow raising claims. Evolution, they say, is a fact beyond any shadow of a doubt, as obvious as gravity, and so forth. These claims are perceived to have the full faith and backing of modern science. But they do not. Behind such unbelievable claims is, not surprisingly, any number of logical fallacies that cannot stand up to even modest scrutiny.
Posted by Cornelius Hunter at Thursday, June 04, 2009
The Three Fallacies of Evolution
We routinely hear that the biological evidence proves evolution, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Recently PZ Myers made this claim for the fossil evidence and Sean Carroll for the molecular evidence. These evidences are often debated and discussed, but what is often missed is that this evolutionary reasoning is illogical to begin with. Philosophical failure is not a good starting point for discussion. Any debate needs to start with a clear understanding of the evidence and what it means. Unfortunately, such a starting point is difficult to come by. In fact, three different fallacies are routinely at work in the evolution genre. Here are quotes from Myers and Carroll, and an explanation of the fallacies.
In his book The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, Carroll discusses the use of genetic markers such as LINEs and SINEs (long and short interspersed elements, respectively) to reconstruct evolutionary relationships. He concludes:
biologists have sufficient forensic evidence to determine species' kinship beyond any doubt. [99]
Similarly, Myers derives similar certainty from the fossil evidence:
The evolution of whales is also a matter of fact and evidence. We have the fossils; we can see a pattern of change across geological time, from those hooved terrestrial quadrupeds to flippered ambush predators adapted to living in the shallows to four-flippered, paddle-tailed swimmers to obligate water-dwellers with flukes and no hind limbs, with many stages in between. It is a beautiful and strongly-supported example of macroevolutionary change. So yes, we believe it â you'd have to be blind to ignore the testimony of the rocks.
Fallacy #1: Affirming the consequent
These types of truth claims are consistent in the evolution genre. The first, and most important fallacy is that these arguments affirm the consequent. This fallacy states that if P implies Q, then Q implies P. For instance, if a theory predicts that it will rain next Tuesday, that does not mean that if it rains on Tuesday the theory is true. But this is precisely the logic of evolution. If evolution is true then we expect fossil sequences and genetic similarities to fall into the expected evolutionary patterns. Evolutionists such as Carroll and Myers have found such patterns in the fossil and molecular data and claim, as above, that they prove evolution to be true.
Fallacy #2: Confirmation bias
A common motif in the evolution genre is the elevation of confirming evidence. As in the examples above, the patterns that fit the evolutionary expectations are touted as proof texts. But there are plenty of evidential problems as well. Often these problems are in the same data in which the evolutionists find their persuasive patterns. Yes, many fossils fall into the expected pattern, but many do not. Likewise for the molecular data. These uncooperative data are often not considered when evolutionists formulate their proofs of why evolution is a fact. This fallacy is known as confirmation bias.
Fallacy #3: Evidence denial
Because there is so much uncooperative data, evolutionary expectations have become quite flexible. In fact, sometimes it is difficult to identify just what constitutes the expected evolutionary pattern. In the fossil record, for instance, increasing complexity, decreasing complexity, rapid appearance, trees, bushes, diversity explosions, stasis for eons can all fit within evolution's broad and flexible imagination of what natural forces can do. Therefore, when evolutionists find great significant in evidences that fulfill some particular evolutionary pattern, they are ignoring the many other patterns that evolution also expects.
Evolutionists consistently make eye-brow raising claims. Evolution, they say, is a fact beyond any shadow of a doubt, as obvious as gravity, and so forth. These claims are perceived to have the full faith and backing of modern science. But they do not. Behind such unbelievable claims is, not surprisingly, any number of logical fallacies that cannot stand up to even modest scrutiny.
Posted by Cornelius Hunter at Thursday, June 04, 2009
FACING THE FACTSâSome men are willing to face facts; others prefer that which has no basis in fact.
Thinking that if he says it enough, it might convince someone, *Ruse proclaims to the public:
"Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!" â*Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (1982), p. 58.
But genuine scientists have something far different to say about evolution in relation to "facts." One of them, *Denton, put it this way:
"The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological researchâpaleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe." â*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
*Pierre-Paul de Grasse says this:
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. "â*P.P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Oganisms, (1977), p. 202.
Matthews adds his comments:
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved." â*L. H. Matthews, Introduction, Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, (1971 edition).
CHAPTER 38 - FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION
http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V3/3evlch38.htm
Thinking that if he says it enough, it might convince someone, *Ruse proclaims to the public:
"Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!" â*Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (1982), p. 58.
But genuine scientists have something far different to say about evolution in relation to "facts." One of them, *Denton, put it this way:
"The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological researchâpaleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe." â*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
*Pierre-Paul de Grasse says this:
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. "â*P.P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Oganisms, (1977), p. 202.
Matthews adds his comments:
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved." â*L. H. Matthews, Introduction, Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, (1971 edition).
CHAPTER 38 - FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION
http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V3/3evlch38.htm
Quote from jem:
hey troll liar... here was your exact quote... where is the fricken page number... you liar. I was serious....I told you I looked at your quote and for pages after it------ and saw no link or page number. so now you lie... what is your point other than to be a troll.
next
you seem to let science go over your head every time.
since we know de duve knows the search for abogenesis is still continuing. We know that you are the one using the quote out of context.
If you do not know the origin of life... you really can't say it was chance can you? so you quote needs context. And if you had half a brain you would understand that with respect to this context... zzz just schooled you.
and here is the point... from the de duve quote you pasted but , clearly did not understand.
By definition, the science is based on the idea that the object of study is naturally explainable. Why look for an explanation otherwise? What is truly wonderful is how much of nature, including the fundamental features of life, has already proven to be explainable."
Like I said deceit boy, you'd deny deny deny, and you have.
Screaming anything, no matter how ridiculous, is the basis of your argument for a creator of the universe. lol. This time it's about "fricken page numbers".
So I give you the page number the volume and the publication, and then you deny it's even printed. Thatâs what you do. Itâs all you have.
I just covered all the aspects including whether or not any quotes were being taken out of context.
There is no way de Duve is putting anything down to other than chance as the science shows it to be. Arguing any absurd claim to the contrary merely compounds your deceit.
You protest too much. You were caught again trying to peddle another in a long line of misrepresentations in the name of your imaginary creator.
Quote from jem:
explain to how the fine tunings of the universe were designed in house.
explain how abiogenensis happened in house.
by the way i am not against evolution, no one here is against the idea that some things evolve over time. But some of us are for facts. Evolution has not explained life evolving from non life. not yet anyway. .
You pretend science explains away a creator. yet when pinned down and asked for proof you lie and pretend you supplied it somewhere else.
So fact and proof is always needed for evolution but never for intelligent design.
You deny, deny, deny, fact and proof of evolution, to blindly accept imaginary intelligent design.
Deal with that, then you might make some progress.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
"Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!" â*Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (1982), p. 58.
..and intelligent design is to refuse, refuse, REFUSE the fact.....
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Nonsense.
Make believe random ignorant chance (evolution) doesn't do any of what you suggest.
The Three Fallacies of Evolution
CHAPTER 38 - FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION
"You deny, deny, deny..."
Wonder if stu is clicking his ruby slippers when he says deny three times...
Wonder if stu is clicking his ruby slippers when he says deny three times...
Quote from stu:
Like I said deceit boy, you'd deny deny deny, and you have.
Screaming anything, no matter how ridiculous, is the basis of your argument for a creator of the universe. lol. This time it's about "fricken page numbers".
So I give you the page number the volume and the publication, and then you deny it's even printed. Thatâs what you do. Itâs all you have.
I just covered all the aspects including whether or not any quotes were being taken out of context.
There is no way de Duve is putting anything down to other than chance as the science shows it to be. Arguing any absurd claim to the contrary merely compounds your deceit.
You protest too much. You were caught again trying to peddle another in a long line of misrepresentations in the name of your imaginary creator.
So fact and proof is always needed for evolution but never for intelligent design.
You deny, deny, deny, fact and proof of evolution, to blindly accept imaginary intelligent design.
Deal with that, then you might make some progress.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
What an argument.
Stu mimicking a dogmatist...
It's tough going when all the atheist can do is deny, deny, deny the lack of a proof for random ignorant chance.
"You deny, deny, deny..."
Wonder if stu is clicking his ruby slippers when he says deny three times...
Your responses contain the same intellectual content as a Flat Earther's.
If blind ignorant chance was all evolution has to work with, it's certainly done a far better job of proving itself , than random blind ignorant faith ever has for the creationistsâ intelligent design.
Evolution : proven
intelligent design: well, um err, science sucks